Skip to main content

Full text of "Remarks on Dr. Wells his letter to a dissenting parishioner. : In a second letter to a friend"

See other formats


Accessions ■CA^± Shelf N<V, 



/ 







nvv^w^, Ififu, /y, IMif. 



Boston Public Library 



Pam phlets. 




% - «. t » 



Accession No. 
Added 

Catalogued by 
Revised by 

Memoranda. 



REMARKS 

O N / 

Dr. WELLS 

H I S 

LETTER 



T O A 



Diflenting Pariihioner. 



In a Second, Letter to a, Friend. 



www 



LONDON, 

Printed by J. Humfreys, for John Lawrence 
at the Angel in the Poultry. ijc6. 



i U 1 



I 



n 






t 3 1 



SIR, 

WHEN I fent you my Remarks upon the 
Doctor's Letter to Mr. Dowley, I iiad noc 
feen that to a difYenting Parifhioner 5 but it 
lias fince come to my hands ; and I iind up- 
on the Perufal of it, that many things in it have receiv'd 
an Anfwer in my former, and fo will the lefs need to be 
coniider'd again in this. There are feveral things in this 
Letter of the Doctor's which I fhall not take notice of, 
as being of no moment in the prefent Controverfy ; his 
folenin Harangues, grave Admonitions, and infulting 
Triumphs, add nothing of weight to his Arguments; 
and therefore when thefehave receiv'd an Anfwer, every 
one will difcern the other do no hurt to our Caufe. I in- 
tend like wife to be (paring in my Animadverfions on his 
Reproaches, and the damning Sentences which he paffes 
upon us, it being evident, we are not to Hand or fall by 
his Judgment. 

tint thing we are concem'd to take notice of, is 
what the Doctor undertakes to prove ; That wc are all wi- 
der an indiffenfable Obligation to follow the Rules an.l Di- 
li of Juch as are duly anthoriz'd to govern that part of 
the CI riflian Church, which is within this Nation, and that 
in all things by them required of us that are not finful : To 
which puf pole, he urges lie!-. I}. 17. Obey them that 
have the Rule 0: nd Jubmit your felves, &c. < 

c unJa/luod of Obedience, and iubmijji 
Spirit:. \ winch I grant : Hut then he adds, 

., (1.) That . 
■,-,ch, and eonfetwentiy in (every di 

tionalCbur, vhofe 

Office it is to rmU - ,-> '•> 

r 1 ela- 
ting to (be Ci.utc/'j that are left Mi 
jlla. 

A 1 I 



[43 

1 have already confider'd the Text from which the 
Doftor argues in this Place j and, 

i. I defire that it may be remember'd, (as it is there 
alledg'dj that our Obedience can be only due to things 
not fmfully commanded by Rulers. 

2. I add, that the Doctor's Infeience is not good, that 
becaufe fome are Rulers, therefore they have Power to 
determine all Circumilances relating to the Church, left 
undetermin'd by Chrift and his Apoftles ; For they are 
only Rulers under Chriir, the fupream Head and King of 
the Church ; and therefore their being Rulers, is very 
confident with a much more reftrain'd and limited Power, 
than what the Docior afligns them. 

Our Juitices of the Peace are Rulers, and yet have not 
a Power of determining all things undetermin'd by the 
Parliament : They can't bind Men where the Parliament 
has not done it before. 

3. There may be many Circumilances which Chriff 
defign'd fhould always be left undetermin'd ^ and there- 
fore the Doftor fhould produce that Com million whereby 
Chrift has impower'd them to determine thefe things ; 
for I fuppofe no Man can doubt, but that he might fet 
Rulers in his Church, tho he had fuch a Defign. 

4. That it do's not appear, that Chrilt has left to the 
Rulers of his Church, any Power of determining other 
Circumilances, than thofe that are in order to the Exe- 
cution of his cwn Commands : They are authoiiz'd, and 
requird to teach them to obferve all things whatfoever he; 
had commanded them, Mat* z8. 20. but no more that I: 
can find ; and therefore thofe Circumilances which mutt 1 
be determin'd, or his Commands can't be obey'd, they 
mull determine. So the Circumilances of Time and 
Place mull be determin'd, or the Command of Publick 
Worihip can't be obferv'd. And as to fuch Circumilan- 
ces, there may be Reafons in different Times and Places, 
for different Determinations, which thofe on the fpot will 
le belt able to judge of. And Co the Wifdom and Good- 
nefs of our great Law-giver is manifefl, in his leaving 
thefe things undetermin'd. But this da's not in the lealt 
eftablith their Power to appoint fuch things as are no way 
neceffary or ufeful, in order to our obferving what he has 
commanded, fuch as the Crofs in Baptifm, &c. 

5. Ir 



C53 

5. In thofe things, in which (tho the LawofChril* 
has really left Men at liberty) Chaiitians may differ in 

their Apprehenfion::, Church-Rulers have not a Power tu 
determine which fide fhall be taken. That this is a fup- 
pofable Cafe, may appear by Rom. 14. And fhould all 
thefe things in difpute be really lawful, yet faux many 
judge them unlawful, and they are not any way necelTary 
or uieful, Church- Rulers have no Power to impofe them, 
for this plain Reafon, that this agrees not with the very 
end of their Power, which is for Edification, and not for 
Deitruclion \ z Cor. 10. 8. Now, this Power can't be to 
Edification j for In fuch things where God has left us to 
our Liberty, we are not the better for doing 'cm, nor 
the worle for not doing 'em } 1 Cor. 8. 8. It is to De- 
ilru&ion ; as it is prejudicial to the Soul of a Chrillian, 
if he obeys while he is not fatisfy'd of the Lawful nefs of 
the thing enjoin'd 5 or as it is prejudicial to the Unity and 
Peace of the Church, while it necefTitates the doubting 
Chrillian to feparate, that he may not wound his Conlci- 
ence. 

6. When the Doctor fays, That from Heb. 13. 17* 
it appears, that in the Catholick, and confequcntly in (every 
particular part thereof, that is) every National Church, there 
are fome whofe Office it is to rule. 1 mult own I am at a 
lots to underftand him : That it appears from thence, 
that in all thole particular Churches, to which the Apo- 
itle wrote, there were Rulers, 1 grant, and that there 
ihould be fuch in all other Churches of the like Nature, 
is acknowledged Likewife : Kut as the Apoitle [peaks not 
of the Catholick Church, 1 am not able to difcem the 
rtafonof his Conference. One would think, that if the 
Text yields any Argument for the Doftorj it mufl be this • 
In all Particulai Churches there are Rlllei 
ouently there mult be fuch in National Churches (aiU 
then if he has I mind to plealure the PopHh Ufufpers, he 
may add; and cnnieijuemly there mult be fuch in the 
Catholick nr Unlvtna] Church : The Catholick Church 
■ai no othti governing Hod but Cnriit • .met he governs 
it, not by any Oovernpur, <-r any Body <>r Aflcmblyof 
Oovernuui r 1 ovei ii i Cithohck, but by Governouri 
let over tnv feveral Uftincl Parti of v/hifh h Is 
Mituud. 

A 3 1 hi 



If J 

The Queftion now comes to this ; Into what kind of 
Parts is it the Will of Chad that the Church Catholick 
fhould be divided ? Or what Notion do's the Scripture 
give us of thole Churches which had Rulers fet over 
them ? The Doctor lays, that in every National Church 
there mult be fome whofe Office it is to rule. But why 
mould he not look upon himfelf concern'd to fhew us the 
Inftitution of a National Church ? I mult declare, I find 
nothing of this nature in the New Teitament, where I 
meet with no other than thefe two forts of Churches, 
the Catholick Church, and the Churches of one particu- 
lar City or Place. The Chriftian Societies of a whole 
Country, are never fpoken of as one Church, but as 
Churches, as the Churches in Judea y i Thef. i. 14. The 
Churches of Macedonia, z Cor. 8. 1. The Churches of 
Jjia, 1 Cor. 16. 19. The Churches of Galatia, 1 Cor. 
16. 1. Gal. 1. *. And there is not one Inftance to the 
contrary in the New Teftament ; fo that it is not fair for 
the Doctor to argue, that becaufe there ought to be Ru- 
lers in thofe Churches which Chrift has instituted, and 
we are obliged to fubmit to them, therefore Men may, 
when they have devis ? d a new Species and Kind of 
Churches, appoint Governours over them, and require us 
to fubmit to them. That every diftinft Church in thofe 
feveral Countries, had a full and compleat Power of Go- 
vernment within it felf, I can't think will be deny'd ; 
and this was a facred Truft committed to them for their 
own Prefervation, and other molt valuable Purposes. 
And I humbly propofe it to Confideration, whether 
it be reasonable to luppofe, that they could of Ri^ht 
part with that Power they were originally intruded with, 
and place it in the hands of others ? that is, Whether 
the Governours of the feveral Churches, for in fiance, of 
Afu, having receiv'd the Government from Chriit over 
their refpective Churches, could agree together to ella- 
bliih an higher Power over themfelves ? Or could la 
ly fubmit to any Body of Men that claim'd it ? If they 
had no right to tins, I think the Commands of National 
Rulers will be of little moment; for every Chriiliail 
Church in a Nation, is to refume its own Rigi.t. 

This Power of the Rulers of a National C 
that which often recurs in the Doctor's Letter, and in- 
deed is the main iroundation upon which he I u 

And 



[7 J 

And therefore if I mould leave off here, I ihould fullyr 
have anfwer'dthe DocTojr, till lie gjyes. us proof oi 
which he now takes for panted, concerning trie Right 
of a National Church. 

But let us hear his other Argument. 
You know that St. Paul has given this general Rule in re- 
ference to Divine JI r orJbip, Let all things be done decently^ 
and in order , i Cor. 14.40. But jw particular Ruh 
lating to the fever al Circwnfiances of Decency and Ordf*, 
ere to be met with in the Scripture*: And therefore the 
Doctor argues, That either Chriil was deficient in not 
leaving fuch Rules, or ellc he has provided for the tame, 
by this Power lodgM in Rulers. 

To which i anlwer, That when the Doclor would take 
off the Objection from thofe Words, 
Teaching for Dochines tlx Command- Pag. 14. 
vients of Mn \ lie tells us from the Con- 
text, tnat Cluiit freaks orjly againfl fuch Traditions or 
Commandmejits of Men, as did trahfgre£p the Command- 
ments of God, and made the Commandments of God of 
none elfect. How truly he alledges this, will be con- 
iider'd in i r Place : We only crave leave to imi- 

tate the Doctor, and to give our Anfv.er from the Con- 
text, and the Scope of the' ApoAle. Now, in the place 
alledg'd, he argues againil thofe things which carry'd ui 
them an Indecency and Difurder, that was not owing to 
their being particularly forbid by Church- Rulers (for in* 
■ncy and Diforder feems to have been 
wholly an Chuich-Rulers themfelves) but was 

ordiug to the natural Sentiments 
have of Decency and Order: And theiefore the 
1 their piyn Judg- 
thufe of the Unlearned, * Compare 
and <vti\ If 1 Cor. 11. i}. 

■ to- 
II fpeak with , and there corge 111 

l ■, will u 
that \ i ? The Practice therefore whicl 

.t and difc rde/ly, thai it 

A: . 

whicl 

and ( I ill W 



[8] 

obfcr vM. But from hence to infer the Power of Church- 
Rulers by their Commands, to create a Decency in thofe 
things that have none at all in themfelves, is wide from 
the Purpofe. The Apollle fuppofes the things decent, 
and therefore urges them ; and the Doctor argues from 
hence the Authority of Rulers to direel us when we are 
to kneel, frand, or Bow ; whether there be any Decency 
in thefe things, or no. 

'Tis extravagant, to think there is any Decency in 
(landing at the reading of the fame part of the Scripture, 
when read as a Gofpel j and fitting, when read as a Lef- 
fon \ or that there is any Decency in bowing at the Name 
of Jefus, toward an Altar, or the Eall. And if there be 
nothing of a natural Decency in thefe things, the Doctor 
cannot argue from this Text the Power of Rulers to im- 
pofe them. 

Again by the fame fort of Argument, 'twill follow, That 
the Kuleys of the Church have full Power to make, and appoint, 
ell fuch Officers {even over and above thofc mentioned by 
Chrijl and his Apoftles) as they Jball judge convenient for 
the well governing of the Church, and confequently to nuke 
JrcJj-Bifhops, Arch-Deacons, Chancellors, Officials, Appari- 
tors, &c 

What has been already faid, ferv«s for a fufficient An- 
Twer to this. Chriit has appointed Rulers in his Church ; 
he has given them a Power to take Care of the Execution 
of his Laws: And he has made it their Duty toufe this 
Power, and they have no Right to abridge themfelves of 
it, as they reilly do, when they fubject themfelves to 
fuch Officers as he has not appointed, or commit that 
Power to others, which, according to his Appointment, 
was at firfl peculiar to themfelves: And if the Doctor's 
Notion be true, the Form of Church-Government mult 
be the moil mutable Creature in the World. 

According to the Doctor's way of arguing, if National 
Churches may create a new fort of Officers (Arch-Bi- 
fhops) why may not the Arch-Bilhops of feveral Nati- 
ons agree to make Patriarchs ? and all the Patriarchs 
make a Pope ? Or at leait the Doctor bids fair for the 
fetting up of an Englifh National Pope, according to| 
what Lome fufpeded to be the Defign of a certain Pie- ; 
late, who refus'd a Cardinal's Cape, 

And 



[93 

And what can be more abfurd, than to difpute, whe- 
ther Presbyters (Officers of Divine Appointment) have 
the Government of the Church committed to them, and 
yet make Chancellors (a Parcel of meer Lay-men) Judges 
in Spiritual Courts of the moil important Concenu, 
as Excommunications, grV ? 

i. The Doctor fays, It appears from Heb. i;. 17. That 
all other Chriflians art bound in Confcknce to obey and Jub- 
mit to the [aid Rulers of the Church. 

I anfwer in the Doctor's own Words, That as far as 
the Power of the Ruler doth extend on the one hand, fo far 
on the other fide is to be extended the Obedience of thofe un- 
der Rule; that is, A Cliriltian is bound to obey thofe 
whom God has let over him, fo long as they act accor- 
ding to their CommifTion j but when they go beyond 
that, they become Tyrannical, and he is at his Li- 
berty. 

But the Doctor argues, That there is no Limitation j?- 
MsV, whereby the Oucdience required Jbould be refnain'd 
to fucb Matters as are detcintin'd by Cbijl and his A- 
fojlles. 

I anfwer, There is no Limitation annex 'd when v. e 
are requir'd to obey Magiitrates, Tit. J. I. And yet 
this Nation is very leniible, that l'uch may i^o beyond the 
Power that is committed to them, and that then Sul 
are not bound to obey. 

Or again, it is very poflible that Civil Rulers may 
command one thing, aud Church Rulers another ; ai-, 
for ought I lee, is actually the Cafe as to the whole Body 
of the Canons of 1640, and of many of thofe ot ( 
Or again, the like Obedience is urg'd upon Children to 
their Parents, Ephtf. 6. 1. and upon Servants to their 
Matters, ver. 5. And thefe muit be fuppo^d not to inter- 
fere with one another: And therefore 'lis plain, vt 
mull here diltinguifh the Nature of the feveral Powers ^ 
and in the particular Cafe before us, mull judge what 
the Obedience is th2t we are to yield to the Ru 
the Church, by the Commiilion and Authority they 
receiv'd from Chrifl j and what that is I have ul 
already. But farther, the Text it lelf do\ con; 
Limitation in the Reafon that is given, for tky watch for 
crefore fo long only as they watch KM 
the CoodoVmy Soul, and in thul'e things wherein 

do 



C IO ] 

do fo, I am to fubmit to them, and obey them • but 
when they enjoin tilings that can't poffibly do my Soul 
any Good, as the Oofs in Baptifm, bowing toward an 
Altar, gjV. They herein watch for themfelves, and the 
letting up of their own Authority, and watch not for 
my Soul, except to make a Prey of it ; and therefore 
hereinthe Apoi'ile do's not require me to obey them. 

But ((ays the Doftor) no Cbrijlfyncan be reafonably fup- 
fos y d to fcruple giving Obedience to what is cxprejly comman- 
ded by Chrift and his Jpofllcs j and therefore if the Obedience 
required, is to be underfiood to extend no farther than to what 
is exprejly commanded m the Scriptures, then there feems to 
le no occafion left for the infpifd Writer to give any fit ch 
Vrecept. 

To which I might anfwer, that fome things not deter- 
min'd, or exprefly commanded by Chrifi, were yet necef- 
fary to be determin'd, in order to the obeying his ex- 
prefs Commands j and in fuch things they were to obey 
their Rulers. But pailing that, I would fain have the 
Doctor make good his AlTertion \ for I fear it will be 
found at lafr, that in all Ages of the Church, there have 
been many Chriftians (7. e. many who profefs'd themfelves 
fuch, and were in vifible Communion with the Churchy 
who fcrupled giving Obedience to the exprefs Laws of 
Chrift, and (to ufe fome of the Doctor's words) fbe In- 
fpir\i Writer for feeing that in after- Ages, (and indeed fin- 
ding it too true in his own) fame might arife, who, not 
fo much out of Humour, as out of Perverfcnefs, and defpe- 
rate Wickednefs, might be Drunkards, Whoremongers, 
Liars, Cheats, gjv. (tho thefe things were directly cp- 
pofite to the exprefs Laws of Chrift) he ur^es them to be 
fubject. to their Rulers, for this Reafon, Lecaufe they in 
their publick and private Exhortations, and by the Djfci- 
pline appointed by Chrifi, were to urge and incillcat 
avoiding thefe things, and to prefs upon them the contrary 
Vermes. Iamfure, the Doctor's Reprefentarion 
any Age of the Church ; no not that in the 1 

!^e feeri by the Chrrrch 
biforders we read : And by the J[an Churc :. ,& ; . 

Hdncw ( (to whom v 

writtenj were one to depart from C 

and his . ./1 the gi • ]-,icli 

retairr'd to ] 



[ " ] 

exhorts them to Stedfaitnefs in the Chriftian Religion ; 
and upon tins very account urges them to regard their 
Rulers in this Chapter, v$r, 7,8. Nay, that the Obedience 
to Chwch-RuUrs requif d in the aforr-jaid Text, is to be un- 
deijlood principally and chiefly in teference to tilings deter- 
mined only by their Authority, may be farther argued from 
' this will appear from the Diftin- 
Hion made ufe of hy St. Paul, I Cor. 7. for ver. 10. Where 
he delivers what was by tur Savijur himfclf enjoined to 
vu>>y\i Perfxnu, having at fir ft faid, Unto the Marry d I 
comm.i- I tfently recalls h:vifelf, as having fpoken left 

cly, and fnbjoins, let not I, (tint u, in jlritt Pro* 
I) but the Lord. And in like manner^ 
ver. ii. he fays, But to 1 tk J (t/jOt is more proper- 

ly 1) not the Lord, vi.:. ]iy any exprefs Ckmmand or Deter- 
according to tbu Distinction, 
toobjcric ..prejly cod :u Scripture, is 

not (property) the Rulers of the 
Church \ a\ nly we can be J:id (popcrly) tu obey 

urch Rulers themfeivcj, whin we obfetie or do fome- 
, j it be not commanded in the 

are. 
1 do not much diflike the Doctor's Interpretation of 
ay.,, let nv /, but the L 
himfclf had by his own 
and that there- 
freaking <;t, was rather to be look'd 
is the i rely, and nor 

.. But then wnen lie 
1 
I 

10 be underlUKxi, a t 

; , irjon, ( .. 

me Command 
r may a-ili; . 
. 

1. And 
I 

- 



[ I*] 

no fuch Infpiration ? Or would lie perfwade us, that to 
obey the Commands which Chrift gave by the infallible 
Direction of his Spirit, is not properly to obey Chrift ? 
will indeed own, that to obey Church Rulers, when thej 
command what Chrift do's no ways command, is not 
properly to obey Chrift : And add farther, that till they 
can give us good Evidence of that Infpiration the A- 
poftles had, I cannot look upon my felf oblig'd by the. 
Commands they are pleas'd to enaft. It is certain,, 
where the Apoftles had no Rule themfelves, they pre- 
tended not to give any. The things enjoyn'd at the Coun- 
cil of Jerufalem, were neceflary things, which it feem'd , 
good to the Holy Ghoft, and to the Apoftles to lay upon 
Chriftians : Alls 15- 18. In other things they left Chri- 
ftians to their Liberty, Rom, 14. And if the Apoftles 
themfelves claim'd not a Power of determining fuch 
Matters, I cannot but queftion the Right of all Church- 
Rulers who come after them. 

I {hall take notice of his other Consideration that fol- 
lows here, when I come to confider the 8th Objection 
which he f peaks to ; and therefore now pal's on his id 
General Head, which is, as he tells us - 

II. To prove, That the Govemours of that Part of the 
Christian Church, which is within this Kingdom, are (fo far 
as concerns the Controvtrfy hetween us aid you) thofe we 
now a-days call Bi/bops. 

The Do&or is larger on this Head in his other Letter • 
and having confider'd that already, I refer the Reader to 
my other Letter : I fhall only add j 

1. That the Doctor has here left out the Lower Houfe 
of Convocation, who are all Presbyters j and yet they in 
each Province concur to the making of Canons ; and 
therefore, one wouM think, mould be part of the Spiritu- 
al Legiflature, o r of the Government of the National 
Church. And he has left out the Prince, without whofe 
Approbation their Canon fignifies nothing. He has left 
out the Parliament, who have a Power to difannul any 
TEvflheir Canons, or to make what Alterations they 
pleafe in the National Church. And indeed it is hard to 
fay, who are the Govemours of our National Church : 
For the Bifhops can't in any relpexft be look'd upon as 
more than a part of the Spiritual Legiflature : And as we 

pretend 



C 'JO 

pretend that Minifters fhould be under Chrift, juftfuch 
are they in their feveral DioceiTes under the Convoca- 
tion, bound by their Commands, and oblig'd to lee to the 
Execution of them, fo far as the Civil Government will 
permit them. 

2. As it is unreafonable for Men to alter the veiy 
Species of Churches from the firft Inilitution, fo it is un- 
realonable to pretend, that Men come to have a Right to 
rule the Church in any other way, than what Chriit has 
appointed j and I fear it will be hard to find where he 
has intrulted the Civil Magiftrate with the Power to 
chufe the Governours of his Church. 

The Doctor then tells his Parifhionar, that he has fome- 
what experienced, that after the greatest Evidence that tan 
he defir d from Antiquity in this Cafe, there is at lafl an E- 
vafion ready to be made ufe of by him, that ha is not Scholar 
enough to enter into the Merits of the Controversy. 

But in my Appreheniion, no great matter of Scholar- 
fhip is requilite in this Cafe. Every Chriilian's Religion 
(hould be in his Bible ; and he need not much regard thole 
that argue from any other kind of Teitimony. Now I 
don't think it fo hard a matter for Men to underftand, 
whether according to the Scripture there were Bithops 
appointed over Presbyters. And when I confider that 
this Obedience to Bifhops is that which the Dodior re- 
quires under pain of Damnation, and would perfwade us 
that the believing every thing Reveal'd in the Scriptures, 
and obeying all the Commands of Chrifr, will not fave a 
Man, who do's not obey theBiihops, I cannot but think, 
that the fulleli and cleareft Evidence is to be given us 
from the Scriptures, that this is our Duty, and that th« 
neceifity of luch Obedience ihould be Ihewn as clearly and 
poiitively exprefs'd, as is the Necefiity of Faith and Hoh- 
nels. But the Dodtor himfelf lufficiently declares, thai 
tliis is not tlie State of the Cale ; when he tells us, that- 
tU Order of Apoflles was diJlinH from the Order of Presby- 
tia s, and the jam: with what we now call the Order of bi- 
jbo' t s, is fairly tube gathei'd from the i\ew Tcjlawint it 
/i./, and is evident beyond aU Contradiction from the H'ri- 
tn.gi of the I'timithe Chrijliam. Now this (hould be evi- 
dent beyond all Contradiction, from the New Tettammt 
it felf, if it were an Article of Faith iieculuy to be be - 
beved in order tu Salvation. I have aluajy lutiiJcntW 

an- 



C h3 

anfwer'd what he here ait'erts, and to his Ignatius, I op- 
pole Clemens, and Polycarp, as ancient WitneiTes, who 
give a plain Teitimony of die two-fold Order ; and add, 
that we oppofe not the Epiicopacy mention'd by Ignatius 
himtelf. 

But let us fee how the Dodor anfwers in this Cafe. 
He asks him, What is the Confluence of this ? Is it not 
that you ought, in all fetch Cafes too difficult for your felf to 
determine, to betake your felf to him, who is appointed by 
God to be your immediate Guide in all Religious Matters, that 
is, to your Parifi-Minifler f And that the Parifh-Miniflers 
are thus appointed by God, he labours to prove by this 
Reafon, becaufe they are appointed by the Bifhops, 
the Governours of the National Church. 

Now in anlwer to this, i. I defire the Reader to ob- 
ferve what he means by betaking himfeif to his Parifh- 
Minifler, that is, that he is not only to confult him, but 
to fubmit his own Judgment to his, as I think is plainly 
the Doctor's Scheme in many Places. Now this is what 
the Papiils would fain urge People to, but is a Principle 
very contrary to the main Foundation of Proteitants, and 
the Rule of the Apolile, Prove all things. And the Pa- 
piils are willing to put the matter on the fame Foot, of 
Cafes too difficult for the Laity. But we deny, that any 
thing neceffary to Salvation is too hard and difficult for 
fuch to determine. 

2. I deny for many Reafons already mentioned, that 
the Bifhops have the Power pretended. 

5. The Appointment of a Bilhop is only a matter of 
Form, he having no Right to refufe the Prefentation of a 
Patron, who can have no Right, by the Laws of Chrifl, 
to chufe a Guide for the Souls of the whole Parifh. 

4. The Appointment of a Bilhop is often not neceflary, 
as in many places, which are exempted from Epifcopal 
JurifdicHon. 

Whence you may learn, that in reffeel to the Church, 'tis 
no more left to your own Will or Choice, whom you will look 
upon as your true Fajlor or Minifea, than in reffift to the 
State 'tis left to your own Will or Choice, whom you 11 hok 
upon as your Covftable, Sec. hut as he that is duly 
by the Civil Magiftrsie to be the Corfl able of yarn 
to be acknowledge as your GraftiAfe; Jo he that it 
fointed by the prefer Jfirtfuil Magistrate to be the Minister 

-/ 



L *5 J 

of your Farijb, is to be acknowledged on all accounts as your 
Minister or Pastor, and as fuch is to be your Guide in fviri- 
tual Matters. Jr 

Not to repeat what is faid before, I anfwer, that the 
Doctor s Parallel will not be much amifs when rightly 
put, that is thus ; As he that is chofen by the Parifh 
according to the fixed Laws of the Land, to be Confteble' 
is to be look'd upon as Conftable of the Parifh • fo lie' 
that is chofen by the Church, according to the Laws of 
Chnit, to be the Minifler of it, is to be look'd upon as 
the true Minilter of the Church. 

As to what follows, it is only filly wheedling (not un- 
ufual in the Doctor's way of writing) that will fuit any 
Climate, Proteitant or Popifh. The Cafe is not fo diffi- 
c"^ but that any ordinary ttiiderftanding, upon impar- 
tial Consideration, may judge of it. I will be fo free as 
to lay, that the Prefentation of a Patron, or the Inftitu- 
tion and Induction of a Bifhop, have not as yet been 
prov d to be full Evidences of a Divine Appointment of 
a Man to be the Miniiter of a Parifh. And he that is of 
my mind, and is tor choofing another to be the Guide of 
his boul, afls, for ought I can fee, very warrantable. 
And tho the Errors of a Minifler will not iuftify the Er- 
rors of the People, and the Dotfor is miflaktn, when he 
ays the Error is not properly the Peoples, but the Mini- 
vers, when he leads them into it, for it is properly the 
^ r f f ^th, becaufe .^h are in the wrong, {nd both 
ought to iearch the Scriptures, and the People are not to 
rely upon any Mincer's Authority for the truth of what 
he fays; yet I mall always entertain fuch Notions of 
God .Mercy, as to think he will pardon the involuntary 
Errors of all fincere and humble Souls, who Iearch the 
bcuptures for Information, and act according to the belt 
Light they can get from thence, in Matters that relate to 
then Ipiritual Benefit ; and by this Rule I judge indiffe- 
rently of Church-men and Diflenters. 

III. His third General Head is, That nothmt fmful is 
reaun d of you by the Bijbofs, and therefore that thfre can he 

lUTlSt ipt&Str" for your **« » oh - 

tflmhS^JCf OT t,,is Hc ? d * t,u lhe &*■ ** ***** 

•aaUilhd the Sight ot our Dfccefa* Bifhups, to be Go- 

ven. 



vernours of all the Churches in this Nation, and till he 
has prov'd, that all Governours have a Power to enjoyn 
every thing not (infill, both which I have before confi- 
der'd. 

The Do£tor fays, they require nothing that is againft any 
Precept in the whole Scripture. Of this I have had, and 
(hall yet have occaiion to fpeak elfe where. 

The Doctor is pleas'd to inllance in fome things which 
he fays are not finful ; as, 

The wearing the Surplice. I will own, that a Garb in it 
felf is an indifferent thing, and that the wearing a Sur- 
plice in the Worfhip of God, absolutely fpeaking, is not 
m my Apprehenfion finful. But this being one of the 
Ceremonies of the Church, it is to be confider'd for what 
life it is retain'd and en'oyn'd. Now that we learn from 
the Preface to the Book of Common-Prayer, which tells 
us, that other (Ceremonies) there be, which altho they 
have been devised by Man y yet it is thought good to referee 
them still, as well for a decent Order in the Church (for the 
rthich they were fast devised) as becaufe they pertain to Edi- 
fication \ and afterwards they fpeak of tneie Ceremonies 
sn faving to decent Order and Godly Difeipline, and as apt 
to Jlir up the dull Mind of Man to the Remembrance of his 
Duty to God, by fome notable and fpecial Signification where- 
ly he might be ediffd. Now I cannot fee how this Ufe of 
tnis Ceremony can be allow'd. If it were only a matter 
of Decency, I doubt not but a Man might lawfully ufe it, 
who was fatisfy'd of the Decency of it, tho I confefs I 
can't fee any fuch thing in it. But when it is carried 
farther than this, and is to be look'd upon as Edifying 
the Soul, this places it at a wide dittance from the in- 
different things fpoken of by the Apoftle, which on ei- 
ther fide render'd not a Perfon either better or worfe. 
Nay, this fo exactly agrees with the Ceremony urg'd by 
the Pharifees, and condemn'd by Chrift, that I can't 
think how it can be juitify'd. For I would fain know 
whether warning Hands was not as proper to put a Per- 
fon in mind of inward Purity as the Surplice ? 

Bowing at the Name of Jefus, or towards the Altar. I 
kuow there are fome in the Communion of the Church 
of England, who do not look upon themfelves oblig'd to 
ihefe. As to the firir, it is enjoyn'd by the Canons of 
>l6o}. as at* many other things, which do not now ob- 
lige, 



lige, and are not obferv'd. The greateft Objection I have 
againft this, is, that I can fee no manner of Reafon why 
I fhould do it, as 'tis enjoyn'd. The Service God re- 
quires of me, and which I am therefore bound to render 
to him, is a realonable Service, and how I can pretend 
to ferve God acceptably, with a Service of which I can 
give no Reafon at all, I am yet to leek. And what Rea- 
fon can there be giv'n, why I fhould bow at the Name 
Tefus, and not at that of Saviour (which is the very 
fame) or at that of Emanuel, Lord, God, Jehovah, 8cc. 

But then as to his other Inftance, Bowing towards the 
Altar \ I own this would offend me much more • but I 
do not think it is enjoin'd by the Church , it is left to e- 
very one's Liberty by the Canons of 1640. And I 
cannot but declare, that this alone, if enjoin'd, would 
caufe me to feparate from any Communion whatever. 

I know very well, the Jews bow'd toward the Cloud, 
and the Temple, $5c. but the reafon of this, was God's 
Prefence in thofe vifible Symbols and Tokens hereof. 
And, fo far as I can apprehend, had not God been fo 
prefent, they would have been guilty of Idolatry in fuch 
Worihip towards thofe things. I think 

Bp. Stillhigfieet has well ihewn, that the See Difcourfe 
Ifraelites were guilty of Idolatry, in concerning Ido- 
worfhiping the Golden Calf in the latry, &c.p. 8i. 
Wildernefs, and the Calves in Ban and & fe$. 
Bethel, altho they only look'd upon 
thefe as Symbols of the Divine Prefence, and defign'd to 
worihip the True God, and not the Calves themfelve*. 
It ought therefore to be evidene'd, that there is the fpe- 
cial Pretence of God continually at the Altar, or that 
the Altar is a Symbol thereof ^ or elfe I can't fee how 
fuch an Aftion, as bowing towards an Altar, can be vin- 
dicated. To lay that this is, in Conformity to the 
Primitive Church, hgnifies nothing ^ for the Quefliou 
then returns, Whether the Primitive Church aaed ac- 
cording to tlie Scriptures ? Bifhop Ujber B , - -. . 
fays, ?! Altho the grot's Idolatry of Po- "tyffD™*- 
u pcry be taken away from among us, * * »*" 
* yet the Corruption cleaveth ilill to the Hearts of 

II many •, as may be feen in v them that makeCourtefie* 
11 to the Chancel, where the High Altar flood. 

B Kneel- 



Kneeling particularly at the Sacrament : I do not deny 
the Lawfulnefs of this Pofture to him who is fo perf wa- 
ded in his own Mind • and yet I can fee no reafon to 
doubt of the Sincerity of many, who do not believe it to 
be lawful : Nor can I think fuch an Opinion is a lufticient 
Reafon to exclude a ?erfon from Cnriltian Communion ; 
and therefore do deny the Power of Rulers to impofe 
it. 

The Crofs in Baptifm. This is us'd as a Sign or Pledge 
of the Merits of Ciiriit. 'Tis enough that the Power to 
impofe it is not made out; and therefore I fhall not far- 
ther alledge what convinces me of the Unlawfulnefs of it 
in it felf. 

Of Set Forms of Prayer : I have fpoken largely in my 
other Letter, and fo pals them over here. 

IV. Next the Doctor proceeds to anfwer our Obje- 
ctions. 

i. The full Objection is taken from Mat. 15. 9. But 
in vain do they worjbip me, teaching for DoBrines the Com" 
mandments of Men. Now this Text (fays he) It generally 
urg'd by your Writers, againfi obferving the Rides and 
Orders of our Church, as being the Commandments of Men, 
(or in the common Language) Humane Ordinances. How 
we argue from this Text, may be feen in my other Let- 
ter ; and I think the Doctor has faid very little in this 
Place to take off the force of the Objection. 

But (fays he) with how little Reafon this Text is wrejled 
ly your Party, againfi the Ruks of our Church, will quick- 
ly appear : For if you confult the former part of the Chapter, 
yon will find, that our Saviour is tJjerein fpeaking only againfi 
fuch Traditions or Commandments, of Men, as did tranfgrefs 
the Commandments of God, ver. 5. and make theCvmmawL- 
jnents of God of none Ejfett, ver. 6. 

The Cue is (plainly this - y The Scribes and Pharifees 
blame Quill's Difciples for tranfgrelling the Tradition of 
the Elders, by eating with umvafhen Hands. There are 
two Parts of our Lord's Anfwer to this Accufation. 
(t.) The Aecuiation is retorted, and a much greater 
Charge is brought by him againit them, for tranfgreifing 
God's Commandments by their Traditions ; and their 
hainous Wickednefs, and notorious Hypocrify, was evi- 
deno'd by their Concern about fuch a trilling Tradition, 

while 



[ n 3 

while they fo direcTly oppos'd the Commandment of 
God, and render'd it of none Effect, What' thL> Com- 
mand of God which is meant, was, "may be feen by the 
Words of the Evangeliilj But he anfwer'd, and faid to 
them, Why do you alfo tranfgrefs the Commandment of God 
by your Tradition ? For God commanded, faying, Honour 
thy Father and thy Mother } and he that curfeth Father or 
Mother, let him die the Death. Bat ye fay, Whofoever fiall 
fay to his Father, or Mother, 'tis a Gift by whatsoever thou 
might eft be profited by me^ and honour not his Father, or hid 
Mother, he fiallbe free. Thus have ye made the Command- 
ment of God of none EfeB through your Tradition* (2.) The 
other Part ot our Lord's Anlwer, is a proper Vindication 
of his Difciples } in which, he tells the Pharifees, that 
thole Rules they gave about warning Hands, &c. and upon 
which they fo much infilled, were not pleahng to God* 
and fo were not binding : And to this part of his An- 
fwer belong thofe Words ; But in vain do they worflrip, 
&c. and this is evident, by comparing Matthew and Mark t 
who both of them diitinguifh theie two Parts of our 
Lord's Anfwer, which being fo diftincT: and different, 
they do not obferve the fame Order in recording them. 
But St. Mark has fet down thi^ latter firit, which is let 
down lalt by St. Matthew ; and therefore I defire the 
Reader to obferve how the Words run in Mark, imme- 
diately upon the Charge, Mark 7. 6. He anfwer' d and 
faid unto them, Well hath Efaias prophefied of you, Hypo- 
critcs, as it is written, This People honour eth vie with their 
Lips, but their Heart is far from me, howbeit in vain do 
thef worjhip me, teaching for Doftrines ttie Commandment t 
of Men. Now here is no mention made of their ren- 
drin^ the 5th Commandment of none Effect, through their 
Traditions, that follows after ; and theicfore it is idle to 
think, that our Lord fpoke only of fuch Traditions as 
were directly oppoiite to exprels Commands. The next 
Words fhew, what (bit .of Commandments of Men our 
Lord Ipeaks againit ; For layim ajide the Commandment of 
ye lxtld the Tradition. of Men, as the wajbing of Pots 
and (Alps, Sec. So tiiat il ihe Doctor would really lay a- 
ny thing to the Purpofe. he (houlu let us uuwn Ionic ttr 
pief; Command of God in the Scripture, which was CQOr 
tiadided by their i 'ladition, concerning the W3fhing of 
Hands, Pots, Cup., gft, 

E 2. 4gai% 



[20 ] 

Again, Clmfl rebukes the Jews for teaching fuch their 
Traditions for Doctrines ; that is y making them of equal 
Obligation and NeceJJity with the Commandments of God. 

I am very fenfible whitflrefs the Jews laid upon their 
own Traditions ; but the QueiUon is now only, Whether 
that Matter be intended in the Text ? and whether the 
Doctor has given us a good Glofs upon thofe Words, 
Teaching for DoBrines ? But unlefs his word may pals for 
a clear Proof, I can fee no reafon for this Interpretation. 
In my Apprehenlion, there is very gctod Senle in our 
Lord's Difcourfe, if it be thus underiiood ^ " The Do- 
" chines, the Rules, and Directions, which you give 
a for the worfhiping and honouring God, are the meer 
4< Commandments of Men • they are fuch things as 
u God has no where prefcrib'd, and which therefore do 
tc not pleafe him, but are vain and unprofitable. And 
let the Reader confide r, whether this do's not exactly 
agree with the Senfe of the Prophet, from whom our 
Lord cites this Paffage, If a. 29. 13. Jndyour Fear towards 
me y is taught by the Precept of Men. So that if the Doctor 
thinks God is ferv'd and honour'd by thefe humane Or- 
dinances in difpute, I can't fee but that fhowever angry 
and uncharitable he is towards the Diflfenters) he is in 
perfect Charity, and at a full Agreement with the judi- 
cious and learn'd Scribes and Vharifees, 

The Doctor gives us a good hint of an Objection 5 
Viz* If thefe Things are not of equal Obligation and 
Necejjity with the Commands of God, Why are tljey Jo 
much infixed upon, and why are they not altered, and 
taken away, that fo the Dijfenters may join Communion with 
us? The Doctor anfwers, That the Rulers of our Church 
are ffiritual Fathers, and the Dijfenters are fo many unto- 
ward Children, that refufe due Obedience, without any good 
Ground. And therefore lie thinks, the Children (and 
not the Fathers^ fhould comply. In anfwer to which 
learned Comparifon, I fay, there may be untoward ba- 
thers, as well as Children. And if Children are arriv'd 
to the full Ufe of their own Underflanding, (the want 
of which, is the gieat Reafon why they are to be guided 
by that of their Parents, during their Minority) they 
are obiig'd to confider of the Reafon and juitice of the 
Commands of a Parent: And when they fee he goes be- 
yond his Power in commanding, and queition die Law- 

fulnefc 



t N ] 

fulnefs of the thing commanded, they are not to obey. 
And to ufe the Doctor's Companion, If a Father enjoyns a 
thing, which he owns to be needlefs, and the Child pro- 
feflcs, that he judges it iinful, and therefore defires to be 
left to his Liberty, he would be an untoward Father with 
a witnefs, in the Judgment of ail the World, who neverthe- 
lefs per lifted in commanding it v 

But the Doctor tells us, This is a meer Sham or Pretence ; 
For, (fays he) / defire to know whit Diffevtert will be gain' A 
to the Church by this method Alone ? We mufl take away, not 
only Ceremonies, but alfo the Sacraments, before the Quaker mil 

joyn with us. Infant Baptifm, before the Anab-ptifi will 

)oyn with us. Tour whole Order of Bijhops, before the 

Presbyterian and Independent will )oyn with us. 

As to any Inftitutions of Chrift, they are not to be taken 
away : And therefore no body expecls the Quakers mould 
joyn with the Church of England, or any other let of Cbri- 
ftians, while they continue Quakers. Nor is Infant JSap- 
tifm to be taken away to gain the Anabaptifts : Tho I 
own their Opinion alone would not hinder me from hol- 
ding Communion with them i But as to the other two, I 
can t think their joining is impollible. If Churches were rq- 
ducVl to their Primitive Size, and Subfcri prions indubious 
Matters were not required, and pretended indifferent Mat- 
ters were left indifferent, and Presbyters were allowed 
their due fhare in the Government of the Church, our 
Difference wou'd not long remain any thing near fo wide 
as it is at prefent. I wonder whether the Doftor thinks 
King Charles the kVs Declaration took away the whole Or- 
der of Biihops ? Or whtther he do's not know that the 
Presbyterians were thankful for it ? If the thing it ielf 
befo Impracticable, why did the Bifhops declare it to King 
James the 2d, that they were ready to tome to a Temper 
with Reference to the Diffenters ? Or why did the Church- 
men promile this to the Diifenters in the time of their Di- 
ftrefs ? Or why did fo many famous Church-men draw 
up Alterations for this end in the Jerufdlmi Chamber } 
Upon this I can't but take notice of what 
Mr. Calamy lays, That " l'uch Amendment Alridgmevt, 
¥ a, thole were, with fuch an allowance tn the p. 655. 
" Point of Orders for Ordination by Prefcby- 
** ters,as is made 13 Eax.Cap. 12. would in all yrolnbility 
*' have brought in two thirds ot the Diifenters in ErgUad. 

B 3 



[ 22 ] 

Ob]. 2. Is from Colojf. 2. 18, & 23. from thence you are 
room to infer, that UU unlawful to comply with the %ites and 
Ceremonies of our Churchy becaufe they are fo many Acls or 
Circumfrances of WiU-worfhip. 

The Di (Tenters do indeed think, that the Will of God is 
the rule of Worfhip \ and that fuch Worftiip as is not ac- 
cording to the Declaration he has given us of his Will, may 
well be callM WiU-worJhipy and is not pleafmg to God. And 
they own they can't find any thing in the Scriptures to fa- 
tisfy them, that God requires us to Worfhip him with 
fuch Ceremonies as Bowing at the Name of Jefus toward 
an Altar 5 or with the Crofs in Baptifm, and the like. 
And this their Opinion is not only grounded on the word 
Will-worfhip, but on other Texts of Scripture, as has been 
fhewn already. It is true, they imagine, they have a very 
good Argument from this Text, and I verily think the 
Doctor has faid but little in anfwer to it. He cites two 
Verlesa the ground of theOoje&ion, and takes notice on- 
ly of one, and that not the Chief, where the word Will- 
worfhip is. He fays, that the voluntary Humility or Wor- 
shiping there fpohn againfl, U thai which was paid by fome of 
the ancient Heretichs to Angeh, as U plain from the exprejs words 
of the Text, Let no man beguile you of your Rgwara in a volun- 
tary humility > and worjhipwg of Angels. 

I fuppofe by thefe Ancient Her aids, the Do£tor means 
the Gnofticks : But I hardly believe it can be made ap- 
pear, that the Apoftle has any regard to them here. I 
can't but think he refers rather to fome corrupt Do&rines 
of the Jews or Jewifh Chriftians ; to which purpole I on- 
ly delire the Context may be obferv'd, both which goes 

before, and which follows after. I am lure 
* Vide Epifl. St. Jerm is of this mind. * I can't certainly 
dd Alga/am, fay, what is then meant by the $$W4.&& 
torn. 3. p, m. t&v ciyyiKw, the Worjhip or Religion of An- 
112. gels^ DLlt if tne An geis ar e here lpoken of, 

not as the Objects, but as the Authors of 
\ Adv. Marc, the Worship, + Tenullian's Interpretation 
lib. 5.^.614. will notbeamifs when he fays, that the 

Apoftle here fpeaks againft thofe, " Who 
* c from Angelical Viiions pretended they mult, abftain 
•' from Meats. With whom alfo agrees a Commentator, 
to be met with among St. Jerome Works. Perhaps this 

may 



In ] 

may well agree with thofe Stories that Dr. 
Ligbtfoot * fpeaks of,as frequent in the Je wifri * Vol. 2. p. 1 20. 
Writings about their Bath, i^o/, and tbe Ap- 
pearance of Eliot to their Wife-men ; and it may be from 
fome iuch kind of Opinion, that the Pharifees chufe to ex- 
prefs thcmlelves fo, ^23.9. But if a Sptiit or an Angel 
bath fpoien to him, let us not fight againfl 
God. I determine nothing, but refer it Comp. Gal. 1. 8. 
to the Conlirieration of better Judgments : 
Only I obferve, if this be the true fen'fe of the Text, it 
bears a little hard upon Socrates's Story of the Original of 
Cathedral Worfhip, who tells us, that it 
arofefrom Ignatius, feeing a Vi lion of An- Lib. 6. cap 8. 
gels tinging Hymns to God in that alternate 
manner ^ with whom agrees Nicephorus Calliflus. * Nor 
do's it much favour thofe, who alledge 
Conjlantine's Vifion of the Oofs, in defence *Lib. i-cap% 
of the Crots in Baptilm. But let the Do- 
aorbeallow'cltohave giv'n 1 us a true Interpretation of 
the 1 8th Verfe, and let us fee whether in the other Verfe 
which he cites in the Objeaion, but omits in the Anivvtr 
there be nothing that deferv'd his Notice. I (hall fet down 

the , T ?f-?2 C l ¥&> , ver ' ?°' &*' wh ^forc if ye be dead 
mtb Lbnji from the rudiments of the World voky as 
though living in <be World, are ye fubyM to Ordinances 
( louch not , taft not , handle not , which all art to peril!) 
in the ufi-ig ) after the Dotlrines and Commandments of 
Men ? Which things have indeed a jhew of Wifdom in 
mll-worjhip and humility, and >hglecling of the body 
not m ary honour to the Jatisfying of the fiefh. In which 
words the Apoftle argues, that Chriftians Ihould not be 
fubiea to luch Ruks and Precepts as thofe, Touch not 
l*ft not , Handk not-, which were eereainly things indif- 
ferent in themfelves. Tbefc Rules he calls Ordinances 
after the Commandments and Doftrinesof Men* where' 
ivethetwo words which are us'd, Matt, u.o and 
I Chrift's Defence tf his Difciples there, is turn 1 
Prohibition (or *hat i-, equivalent ) here A 
Chi lit (hews, that his Difciples were not bound by the Liu; 
0! Men, urgd by the Scribes an I Pharifcc , fo si 
(hews, that chnftian, (hould not obey any fuc I 
Men. And tins heargn 

the Ceremonial Yoke byCtorift: The Rudiments 

W 



1 243 

World are certainly the Jewifh Ceremonies', compare Gal. 
4. 3, 9. & Htb. 9. 1. And if the Ceremonies, whofe Ori- 
ginal was of God, are fpoken of with Contempt here and 
elfe-where, when God no longer requirM the ufe of them; 
I can't think that thofe, whole Original is purely of Men, are 
like to be pleafing to him. Nor can I apprehend, that he 
■who has taken away one Ceremonial Yoke, has Authoriz'd 
uninfpir'd Men to lay another upon the. Necks of his Diici- 
ples. Again, the Apoftle fays thefe things have a /ferrp of 
Wifdom in IVill'Wtjhip, I muft own, the Interpreters dif- 
fer about the word Will-worfhip , whether it is to be 
taken in a good or a bad fenfe. Some think 'tis to be under- 
ftood in a good Senfe, and that Will-worfhip ilgnifies the 
forwardnefs and freenefs of their Service ; and fo they 
think by a (hew of this, and of Humility, they endeavoured 
to fet off themfelves, and to gain Profelites. Others think 
it is to be taken in a bad Senfe, and that fuch Worfhip as 
is not of Divine Inftitution, is condemn'd under this name. 
And by the way, the chief Objection againft this Interpre- 
tation, vii That it is joyn'd with Humility, is eafily re- 
mov'd, if St. Jerom's Interpretation of Humility, in a bad 
Senfe, beallow'd, with whom Termliian kerns to agree, in 
the places mentioned before. But I need not concern my 
felf to determine in which Senfe 'tis to be under ftood ; for 
in either of them it muft have a reference to thofe Humane 
Ordinances fpoken of before \ and if it be under ftood in a 
bad Senfe, 'tis then Plain, that the Apoftle condemns thofe 
Humane Ordinances under the name of Will-worfhip : But 
if it be taken in a good Senfe, he then muft be fuppos'd to 
reckon thee things to have only a plaufible fhew of fome-what 
Good, while they were really Bad : And then, tho'the word 
Will-worfhip will not fupport the Objection, yet the Scope 
of the Apoftle and his Argument will fufficiently do it. 

The Doctor pretends, That here U no dinger of being guihy 

*f Will worfcip, becaufe we aft out of bounden Duty to our ^w- 

frs, aninot of our own WiU and Choice. But this is nothing 

to the purpolc, becaufe the Apoftle forbids a Subjection to 

fuch Ordinances. 

I fhall only fubjoin, that we are not the onlv Perfons who 

objea againft Will-worfhip. Bp. Vjber tells 

Body cf ' Phu us, that in the Second Commandment is for- 

titJt p. 222. bidden " Every Form of Worfhip, tho' of] 

" she True God (Dent. 12. 31.; contrary 

" to. 



[25 "\ 

N to,ordiveifc from the Prefcript of God's Word, (Mtu 

*' 15. <?•) call'd by the Apoftle Will-worfhip. 

" {Coloff.2.2^^ All Will-worfhip, where- + P. 228, 

•* by we make any thing a part of God's 

a . Service, which he hath not commanded, Col 2. 2?. For 

'* how great a (hew foever it have, yet in that it leaneth 

" to Man's Wifdom, 'tis unlawful, in Particular, To 

" devife any other Miniftry than that which God harh Oit 
" dain'd, to place Religion in Meat and Drink, AftmU 
" Time, Place, or any other indifferent Tiring. 

His 3d and 4th Objections are confider'd in my former 
Letter. 

His 5th Objection againft Bifhops being call'd Lords 
Bifhops, is what for ought I can find Diflenrers rarely ah 
ledge, and perhaps never ground it upon the Text cited by 
the Doctor, 1 Pet. 5. 3. or at leaft that is not the principal 
Text thev infift on in that Matter. 

The Qucftion is, whether theft Titles of Honour, and 
that Intereft the Bifhops have in Civil Affairs, do's to weU 
fuit with their Character and Work, as to deferveto be 
made infeparable from it. 'Tis very poflible, that many 
Diffenters have thought they do not, as well as many others, 
and the Doctor is not Ignorant, that there are feveral An- 
cient Ecdefiaftical Canons that favour this Opinion : But 
I will own to him, that whoever grounds an Objection 
againft the Bifhops Titles upon this Text, do's not argue 
very ftrongly •, it being thus in the Greek, not Lording or 
Domineering over God's Heritage, that is, not pretending 
to Rule in an Arbitrary way, and letting up their own Will 
for a Law, and expecting that People mould yield a blind 
Obedience to all their Decrees, and then the Doctor will do 
well tocontider whether his Arguments do not, in a great 
mcafure, oppofe the Prohibition of the Apoftle. 

6. I have coatider'd the Bufinefs of his 6th Objection hi 
my former Letter. 

Objection the 7th ; Proceed we next to the Text urg % d fy you 
for liberty of Conjcicme in Religious M.itters, to wit, G*t«4. If 
StJTtd faji ibereforc in the Liberty wherewith Cbri/f bus made us 
free ? 

Liberty of Conflience (in the common ufc of that Ex- 
rdfion) is hardly argued by anyone trom that Text. Li- 
erty of Confcience, as it fignifits L berty for a Man to fol- 
low the Dictate* aid Direction? of hit Cofl . the 

Worfhip- 



I 



[ 2* ] 

Worfnip of God, is not meant by the Liberty there fpoken 
of. This Liberty is foundv-d upon the Law of Nature, and 
is one of the unalienable Rights of every Good Subject 
which no Government can juftly deprive him of: Eut if 
by Liberty of Confidence, the D ftor means only th 
Confcience 15 freed fj c La*, (vif. the Ceremonial,) 

by which it was oblig'd before ^ fo w fi confefs we do argue 
from this Text : And we own, this Liberty do's not figni- 
fie a Freedom to do what rve will in Religious Matters j We 
own our felves under Law to Chriit ; Wc allow the Do- 
ctor that it relates to the Yoke of the Levi'icdLaw, but 
then our not being oblig'd by the Levitical Ceremonial 
Law, is reckon'd by the Apoftle a Liberty, and a Privilege, 
tho' that Law was of God s own making ; ar. j I hope then 
it will be no great Inftance of our Liberty, to come under 
another Ceremonial Yoke of Man's making. If thefe Old 
Religious Ceremonies, which God himfelf Inftituted, are 
ftiled a Yoke of Bondage, and beggarly Elements, I con- 
fefs, I can't have very Honourable Thoughts of thofe new 
ones which are of an infinitely lefs honourable Extract. 

As to the other Text brought in here by the Doclor, 
1 Thef. $.21. Prove all things. I know none that think it 
gives leave to try and experiment all things. We lay, it re- 
quires that Chriftians fhould examine the things they hear, 
andfearch by the Scriptures, whether they be true or no ; 
and not aft by an implicit Faith in any one who pretends to 
be their Guide : And we fay farther, that the laft part of 
the Verfe, kol&fajl that which it good \ obliges them not to 
entertain his Errors, out only thole Truths which he deli- 
vers ; Ojflfchich I !b ..) (ay more under the next Head. 

Orj. 8th, Hop. 14 23. U'hatfoever is not of Faith, it fin: 
Whence (fays th< Doctor) you may perhaps Argue, that it beirg 
not of Faitl in you. that is, it being contrary to your Pcrfvcafion 
or judgment, 10 join Communifln with us ; It would therefore be 
a fin in you to doHt $ and confequemly for that h^afon ( if for r.o 
other) r :ught to abjlain from our Communion. 2\'ovo 1 de»\ 
fire.;c*, Neighbour, toconfidfr. that if thi* 1 ext is fo to be un- 
Aerllood. at you would biv: it, viz. Vat any Mar's private 
Verfwtfion (how groundless foever) of a things beir.g firful 
^io's entirely cxcufeTnm from dosttg the thvg; then by xbtt ):xt 
Papiff, nay a few, rujg very Htaibtn^ may \ufiifie bis 
ofiVotfcip, as well as you jujiifie yours by the Sctwgritm 



C 27 ] 

I wonder how the Doftor could fatten fuch a Senfe as this 
upon the Diffenters : There arc- none of them who un- 
derftand this Text as he lays. We own that Conlcicnce is 
it (elf under Law, and that an erroneous Confcience, when 
it purs a Man upon omitting a Duty as no Duty, is far from 
inrirely juftifying him : He 1ms in not doing what God 
has commanded, and in not informing his Conference bet- 
ter; but yet (hould he perform a Duty, his Conlcience 
(through miftake) telling him it is a Sin, lie would I'm too. 
And it is not peculiar to the Diffenters to hold that Con- 
ference is every Man's immediate Guide, which he is always, 
and in all things to follow What that dictates to be his 
Duty, he is to do, and what that dictates to be Sin, he is 
not to do. And as the Diffenters profefs their Perfwaiion 
end Judgment in thefe things i^ wholly grounded upon the 
Holy Scriptures the Doctoi might have omitted this Ob- 
jection; lor when he cai convince them, that this Perfwa- 
iion is groundless, he *iU find they will make no fuch u!e 
of the Text. In the mean tune, (for I think his Argu- 
ments do not abound with Evidence and Strength) while the 
I vafion Lifts, they can't but look upon tbemfelves 
bound, by this Text, to follow it. And who is there that 
doubts whether a Pa pi ft, &c t do\ Sin, that changes h> 
Erroneous Confcience tells him he 

fhoui I not. that tbtfe words were 

fpoLen rvith Rcjcrtnce to fuch Particulars^ as were not iajnnin'd 
either hy the ^Lrtpuues ur th- Cozjrnouri of the Church, but 
ry one's Privmc pctcrmbutm. But this b a 
miftake, for St. Piid fpeaks of the eating thole things which 
:n\i (cho' without fuffitient Reaibn) unclean and 
nlawful to b Eaten \ and this Particular was determinM, a*-. 
he Declarer, vtr, 14. / know and am perfrdded h the Lotd 
Jefu;, \hat thtre is nothing wick in of it ft If. What ful- 
ler Determination would the Dod ; have? And yet he 
declares, that an Erroneous: ( : binds in the next 

; Hut to him tl it eftrems any thing unclean, to him 

wfrul, and not Necefla* 

Man fins not, it be tol- 
, and obferves the 

other things that an both 
I lence 

1, he 11ns either way ; bv not doing them, 

bcu, c the writtcn-Law < uy doing 

them, 



C 28 J 

them, becaufehe follows not the Directions of that whjcli 
God has appointed to be his immediate Guide. And 
when ihe Doctor lays, we ought to fubmit, and 
Preference to the lawful Authority of the Church, before our 
own private Perfwajions ; he is greatly miilaken : 1 am ne- 
ver to do lb in Matters of Sin and Duty; but am always 
to follow my own Perlwafion : and it I miilakc, it i* 
not their Authority, but their Arguments and Realons 
mult make me fubmit ; and to urge Men, as the Doctor 
does, has, in my Appreheufion, no other tendency than 
to make them contemn Confcience, (the Regard to winch 
ihould always be f acred and inviolable) and take the rea- 
dy way to contract the moil deplorable Hardnels of 
Heart. 

And now I fhall look back upon the Doctor's Glofs 
upon thofe words, Hcb. 13. 17. Submit your f elves. He 
fays, it is the fame ; as if the Holy Penman 
Pag. o. bad faid this, Tho it may fom: times hap- 
pe?i, that the Rulers of the Church may en- 
join fuch things, as fnrne Members of the Church may not 
like in their own Opinions, yet it is the. Duty of all fuch 
Members of the Clmrch, to fubmit their Judgvients to the 
Judgments of their Rulers, and to comply with their In- 
junctions, by an attual and punffual Obedience. 

I fuppofe by theft Words, May not Hit in theiriown 0- 
finions, he means, that they judge them to be" finrul, 
tor elfe it do's not reach our Cafe :, and then, I fay, this is 
moll pernicious Doctrine. There is nothing more dan- 
gerous, than for Perfons to enfhve their judgments and 
Opinions to the Dictates of any un-inlpir'd Perfons, 
whoever they be. Nay, let us put the Cafe a little low- 
er, that a Perfon is doubtful about the thing enjoin'd, 
that tho he is not fully convine'd that 'tis a Sin, yet up- 
on the account of many plaufcble Reufons and Objections, 
he is not fully fatisfied of the Lawful nefs of ir, will 
the Doctor vouch for him, that he mull then obey his 
Rulers, and fay, that that Text, What H not of Fiith, is 
Sin, is nothing to the purpofe ? Certainly, in this Cafe, 
a Miin is to lufpend his ObeGience to it. Or again, fug 

efe the Rulers of the Church enjoin any thing (in it|J 
f really,) indifferent, of which yet a Perfon quellions the 
wtulnets, while, at the fame time, he is fully fatis- 
?yd, that the Power of Church-Rulers do's not extend 

f 



C*9 3 

to the imposing fuch things, is it not clear, that in this 
Cafe lie is not to comply ? The Doctor fays, fuch a Suk- 
mijjwn h abfolutdy necefjary to prefer ve the Churches Peace* 
And that I own to be t.ue, juit js an abfoiute Submiflioii 
to Al the Uwlnfs Commands of a Tyrant, is abfoluteiy 
iiecell'ary to preferve the Peace of a Kingdom. With- 
out fuch Submiilion, there can be no Peace in the Churcli^ 
• the Rulers will ailume fuch a Power :, but when 
they keep within bounds, and only teach Men to obferve 
what Chriit has commanded, the Peace of the Church 
wiD uot need fuch a Support. 

Next the Doctor proceeds to our Objections that are 
not taken from Scripture. 

Ohje't. 9. You fay then, that the J'l of Toleration 
do's permit ym to feparate from our Communion, and 
tfcntfore you may lawfully do it. The Do&or aufwers, 
'tii not in the rower of an A:i of Parliament^ to fn&ju 
to he no 67 w, which God has madefinfuL And this I granc, 
but deny that God has made our Separation iinful : An4 
as the Doctor refers to his Papers for a Proof, I refer to 
mine tor an Aniwcr. God has never made it finful 
for every Church to ckoofe its «wn Officers, and to or- 
der his W'orfhip in the belt way they can, according to tlie 
Rules of hi; Woid. Nor lias th* Parliament made it 
iintul for us to do fo, that is, it is now againit no Com- 
mand of either. 'Tis true, in the late Times of Persecu- 
tion, there were Acts of Parliament which did forbid us to 
worfhip God according is vcjudg'dwe ought; and tha 
tuig'd, w.is Obedience to the Civil Ma- 
giitrate j and then his Power in all tilings, not forbidden 
in Scripture, was cry'd up, and Submiilion to it pre! 
under pain, not only of i 1 incs, and Imprisonments, &V, 
but of Daniiution. Klelfed be God, this Argument fioin 
an Act of Paiuament (with the many forcible ways of 
urging it upon u>) ic now at an £nd j and we do not hear 

of it, and efpecialJy from the Doctor, who pi 
the lame OL Ihurch-Rulen. Now v. 

I of Toleration, 'tis upon two Ac- 
coin-' 

1. In anfwer 10 any Arguments that are fctch'd fiom 
iu^h A-t, , and to ihew, that the Lawi 
wii*t n ii)) be pretended. 



C jo] 

2. We efpecially urge it upon this Account, becaufe 
the National Church is perfectly a Creature of the States, 
which owes it Being to Acts of Parliament, and therefore 
we can't fee but the fame Power that form'd it, may 
alter it ; and the fame i J i was fuppbs'd to lay an 

Obligation upon USj is able to take it oil. 1 would fain 
know whole Institution a National Church is owing to, 
and whether there couW be any (uch thing without an 
Act of Parliament? It is lament that obliges 

Perfons. rofuchor (uch a Dillrict, to ftibmit to the fei- 
fhop of any City in it. It is t nakes, divides, 

or unites Parifhes : and therefore I take it for certain, 
that it any Obligation lies upon me to refort to the Pa- 
lifh-CiiLKD, or to join with thole that are for a Natio- 
nal Conformity in Ceremonies, it mult be dedue'd ulti- 
mately from an Act of Parliament • and by Confer uence, 
if they have a Power to oblige me to refort to ftich a 
Place, or fort of \V •, fhi . as I was not bound to before, 
they have a Power to r&eafe me from that Obligation al- 
fo. Now this is aftuahv the Cafe, for the Aft of Tole- 
ration has vacited thole former Laws which comman- 
ded me to fall in with the National cnurch, and has left 
me to my Liberty of worshiping God in any way that I 
like better; and of choofing a Pallor for myfelf; and 
thothe Doctor thinks it only frees from Civil Penalties -, 
others think, that fo far as the Sanctions of Humane 
Laws ceale, fo far thofe Laws themfelves do ceale 
alio; fo that there is now no AcT: of Parliament that 
requires any Dilienter to conform to the Qiuich ot 
England. 

Olyt'tt. 10. Our manner of Divine W\rfoip is not fofure 
as that obfav Dijfentiw Conventicles. It was 

thus the Heathens ltiid the AffemWiea of the Primitive 
Chriilians, Conoentieula ': And if the Doftor thinks he 
follows a good txample, we are not unwilling to under- 
go the like Repro-hes with thofe n upon 
the Account of our Regard to the Iuitkutjons of Our 
Lord ; and if he takes Pieafurehereh, and in the Name he 
would give us ot fanatical Papiits, we envy him not his 
Pleafure, and Hull not retaliate. Our Religion teaches 
us to count our felves happy in thele things, and to e- 
fteem them our Honour. 



The 



L ?' 1 

The Doflor fays, this is a dc\;n-rlght Faljhod, Sec. but 
that is difcours'd elfewhere. 



Well y but tvc have, you fay, hmc things, which, tJxj they 

z not forbid, yet neither ate they rtfuiri by the Scriptures, 

and therefore thefe might be let alone, efpccially fince we do 



•not read that the ApoJHes us'd any fuch things, 

For the Weight of this Objection, I need only refer to 
what I lay elfewhere. The Doctor anfwers by retorting 
it upon us, that we have likewife loaie things of the 
fame nature, as Pulpits. I remember, the Doctor in his 
other Letter, produces a learn'd Argument for reading of 
Sermons, out of Jeremy 56. 4, 5, 6. That Baruch wrote 
from the Mouth of Jeremiah all the Words of the Lord. 
I .think verily I may with more reafon, alledge in this 
. Neh. 8. 5. And Ezra the Scribe food upon a Pulpit of 
Wood, which they had made for the purpofe. But I i nil ft 
not on it, for trjis comes within thole Circumitances, 
which are in order to the Execution of God's Commands. 
Our joining in Pullick Worlhip is commanded ; in order 
to this, 'tis ncceii'ary that he tnat officiates fhould be 
heard •, and for this end, as well as others, 'tis net- 
that he mould ltand higher than the People. But in or-' 
der to the Execution of which Command is theCrofsm 
!m, the Surplice, gft. We think we can fee a vaft 
Difference fa thele things ; if the Doftor will not, we 
can't help it : But only (juery, whether he be not led by 
fenejs and fuch like Motives, 
.., trom his own 1 *?, he very readily char- 

ges us with. 
He asks, Why ft 

One is a :ive- 

ier to the Execution of a Divine 

r.und, and tile other not j grounded 

upon a Pi ..en there :ency 

m it. 

•. ir. I; alout agreeing with the Pa pills • of 
■ Letter. 

:iion, 
: of bc(tt> : meet 

It ufc of, 

of tfh 

■ 



of Chrjll, king but one, therefore, to be Edify d, mijl denote 
in tbeftricleft ani true Senfe, being made a Part of that one 
Buiuling, ^ or a Member of that one Church. Jnd therefore 
'tis impojjible that any Teacher ftould edify you, who pro- 
viotes a Separation, juft as 'tis impoj/ible to build up any 
Jfmfe by taking the Stones, and other Materials thereof, 
ani putting than into different Parcels, injlead of uniting 
0) putting them together, whereby alone they can be built up 
into nn Houfe. 

I anfwer, i. The Dixlor takes that for granted, which 
my Chirity will not fuffer me readily to grant him, 
viz. Tint 'tis impoflible that Chrittians, who from their 
differing Sentiments feparate from one anothet, mould 
both be in the one Catholick Church. My Charity will 
not fuller me to entertain fuch black Thoughts of the 
Cafe of all Conforming, as this Principle would fifal- 
lov/'d) conftrain me to. 

'Tis to me no hard thing to imagine, that Men of 
different Communions, may yet both agree in the Faith, 
which is neceffary in order to their being united to Chrifl: , 
by virtue of which Union to him, as their Head, the 
whole Church is one.. And nothing tends to beget more 
jmworthy Thoughts of God, than to represent him, as 
oblig'd to lejecl: and damn all thofe in this Nation, who 
feparate from the Church of England, meerly from a fear 
of difpleafing him, while at the fame time they believe 
all the Doctrines, and obey all the Rules of the Gofpel. 
I can't fuffer fuch a difparaging Thought of Ged, and 
his Goodnefs, once to 'enter into my Mind : But Icon- 
elude, that as in every Nation, lb in every Party of Chri- 
lUans, he that fears God, and worketh Righteoulhefs, is 
accepted, of him. 

And while the Doctor is To free in his Difcourfe of 
this nature, he teems to me to be liable to a juft Applica- 
tion of that Scripture, which he unjuflly in another 
place applys to us, Pfal 50. 11. Thou thought eft I was al- 
together fuch an one as thy Jelf \ that is, he teems to think, 
God has no more Clemency and Mercy than himfelf. I 
have fometimes wonder'd, how Men of the Doctor'* 
High Principles, can make their Notions confift, I mean 
the more favourable Opinions they entertain generally of 
the Papiits, while they own theirs a true Church, and 
hold, that a Man may L« iav'd in it, and yet deny Salva- 
tion 



C » ] 

tion to the poor Diffcuters. And yet, if I miftake not> 
the Separation ought to be as wide between the Church of 
fyme and them, as between them and us : But let the 
Doctor think as he pleafes , while we can approve our 
fetal to God, we neither value «nor fear Mau's Judg- 
ment. 

We are well fatisfy'd we belong to that Church of which 
Chriftis the Head, and are not mov'd by the narrownefs of 
fuch as mcafure the Unity or Extent of Chrift's Church 
by a pitiful Uniformity in Humane Ordinances. 

And let the Doctor look to it, that he be not miftaken, 
Icaft if he be, he mould meet with the fame meafuro in 
Judgment wherewith he now Judges us ; and when Diflen- 
ters come to be acquitted, he mould be judg'd out of his 
own Mouth, and according to his own unmerciful Prin- 
ciple. 

2. We utterly difown the Charge and Guilt of the 
Separation, and fay, it wholly belongs to the Confor- 
mifts, who either laid a defign of forcing us to Separate, 
(as appears by the Speeches of fome, and the Pra 
tticesot others in 1662.) or, who fell in with thofe that 
had fuch a Defign. They have all either affum'd or 
fubmitted to fuch a Power as Chrift has not left in his 
Church, and do infill upon fuch Terms of Communion, 
as tbey own are unneceffary, an das they know, we think 
unlawful. 

3. As to the Doctor's Notion of Edifying, we know 
Yery well that it fignifies building up, and do add farther, 
that 'tis us'd Metaphorically for improving Perfons in 
Knowledge, Faith, Holinds, CSV. And as the Church is 
one Spiritual Houfe, lb is every true Chriftian a Temple 
of the Holy Gtibft, and therefore the Scripture fpeaks of 
fcdifying particular Chriftians, fuch as were already actual- 
ly made pans of that one Spiritual Houfe , or Members of tfut 
one cbiirib : to which purpofe arc thefe places of Scripture, 
Xptn. 14. 19. & !«5. 2. I Coritt. 8. 1. & 14. 4» *7- * ityj'. V 
11. Epbef. 4. 29. 

Nay, this word is us'd ft generally for Inft ruling and 
Teaching, that 'tis once us'd when it can have no poihblc 
Relation to the Unity of the Church at all, it being us'd in 
Senfe, 1 Cor. 8. 10. Shall not the Confdence ot him 
that is weak be emholdned (in the Greek 'tis Bdiffd) to 
<*t thofe things that arc offcr'd to Idols- ? In Ihort, a.- 

C ^ ul £ 



[3* 3 

cording to the general Senle of this word in the Scripture, a 
Man is Edified when he improves in Spiritual Knowledge 
in Faith, Love to God and Men, Cfr. And this being the 
greateft thing a Chriftian has to look after, he is bound to 
ufe thofe means he finds moft conducive thereunto ; and to 
ciitTwade him from this, is to put him upon doing the worft 
wrong to his own Soul : And a ierious Chriftian will be 
able to difcern whether tliu means lie ufes, Edifie him 
or no. 

It will not fignifie much to Difpute whether the Efta- 
blifh'd Worfhip, or that of the Dillenters is moft Edifying; 
No doubt the Doftor thinks fo of the tftabhfh'd, as I do 
ot the DifTenters Worfhip •, and after all, thU muft be left 
to the Judgment of particular Chiiftians. 

I will only add, with Reference to what he fays afterwards 
of the Devil's Delations, that he that finds himfelf to be- 
come more acquainted with the Will of God, more inflairfd 
with Love to God, and more quickned to a zealous Care 
and Endeavour to obey God in all things, &c, by the Mi- 
niftry he fits under on either fide, may be alfur'd that the 
Devil has no hand in this, but that that Miniftry is truly 
edifying to him, by the BielTing of God upon it. 

Obj. 13. You can't but think your Teacher to be a true Mi- 
mfter of Chrift, becaufe he is a good Liver , and preaches the 
Truths of the GcfpeL There are more things than one or two 
that muft evidence a Man a Miniftcr of Chrift. That 
thefe are two Neceflary Qualifications, we are lure from 
Tit. 1. 6,9. 

Ihave in my other Letter confidcfd the validity of the 
Million of the Di(Tenting Mini iters ; and if that ftand good, 
and they appear to have thefe and fuch like Qualifications, 
it will not be in the power of the Doclor to difannul their 
Miniftry. 

But, fays the Doftor Ihen every good Liver is a true Mi- 
viflerof Chrift, (but he knows that is not made an Evidence 
alone) and cmfequcmly vou pur felf muft be a true Minifter m 
the fame fenfe yum Teacher U , Namely, as a good liver figr.i- 
fesagooi Moral Man, (vi%t a good Moral Man, that be- 
lieves in Chrift, that loves God, and keeps his Command- 
ments} but >fby a gjol Liver be meant a good Chriftian, then 
neither jm nor your J etcher can be allowed to be fuck, forafmucb 



e ?* 3 

ms you xnlfuUi and induflrioufly abet and promote what is noft 
firiclly forbidden by ChrijUanity , / mean Divifion in the 
Church. 

We ftand not to the Doctor's Allowances; what has he to 
do to Judge another's Servants, who ftand or fall to their 
own Matter ? But the Doclor is like fooner, by his difco* 
very of his want of Charity, (the very Breath and Soul of 
Chriftianity , and vaftly more effential to it than Obe- 
dience to Humane Ceremonies) to blaft the Reputation of 
his own than of our Chriftianity. But farther, where is the 
wilfulnefs we are charg'd with, who profefs, that 'tis out 
of a fenfe of Duty to God that we do as we do ? I mould 
think the Doctor do's rather wilfully and indufirioufly abet 
and promote Divifion, while he profeffedly pleads againft 
thofe things that might end it : And therefore let him 
think feriouily of that Text, Rom. i. i. therefore thou art 
inexcufable, Man, whofoever thou an that judgeft : for where- 
in thou judge]} another, thou conderrmefl thy /<?//; for thou that 
judge/}, dojl the fame things. 

As to the other Particular, Yreaching the Truths of the 
Cofpel, he fays, The Dijfenting Teachers preach up fome, and 
fr each down other Truths, and encourage Divifion , (buf enough 
of that already) and that this u the common way of Cheats, to 
put off their bad Wares, by putting fome good among them. And 
this is an Insinuation with which the Reputation of any 
Mmifter whatever may be Wafted. There is no tolerable 
Plea the Doclor has for this his bale Suggeftion : We hope 
lie will take our Wordj that our only Motive is a Fear of 
God , and a defire to keep his Commandments \ The 
Doftor expecls his Neighbour mould take his 
word in the like Cafe, and we demand the fame Pag. I. 
of him : As to his long Harangue that fol- 
ding of Argument in it ; let but the Rea- 
der put in the Conformift inftead of the DiflentingTca< 
and fuppoie the Charge to be brought againft them for 
the Separation , and he will fee it uili lerve us as well ai 
him. 

Ob]. 14. Is taken from the bad Lives of fome of our Mini- 
"ere for that Reafon not the Mhiifters of Chi\\ - y 
the wea^nefs of which Objetlion I might jhew at Urge, i < 
ving, that a Man may be a very bad Man, mi } 
Per, particularly from the ir.Jian^e of judjs i ** <« 

I tfTf 



[ ?6 3 

ting the Objection on your own Party \ fortfmch At there Are to 
be found Among your Teachers, as hAi Livers as Among cur 
Minifiers. 

To which I Anfwer ; i. That 'tis very true, that a 
bad Man may not difcover himfelf by his Anions what he 
is, and lb long Charity obliges me to judge well of him ; 
And fo he, who has all other Qualifications but that of true 
Holincfs, fo long as he do's not difcover himfelf by his 
Aft ions to be wicked, is to be judg'd in Charity a Minifter 
of Chrift : But when he (hews himfelf to be wicked, he is 
no longer to be acknowledged a good Man, and much lefs a 
Mini tier of Chrift ; and it is fo far from being a Duty, that 
'tis errant Folly to commit the Ore of my Soul to him, 
who plainly Evidences that he takes no Care at all of Lis 
own. 

2. The cafe is widely different between the Diffenting- 
Congre&ations and the Parifh-Churches ; forafmuch as any 
diffenting Congregation may at Pleafure free themfelvca 
from any wicked Minifter, whereas it is quite otherwifc in 
the Parifh-Churches : And therefore fober Men of the 
EftabliuYd Communion have complain 'd of it. 

3. I own this is only an Objection in fuch places where 
the Minifters are bad Livers, but 'tis a good one if true, 
let them be on which fide they will ; The People are 
oblig'd to feparate from fuch. But as I delight not in Re- 
proaches, I mail only add, that a bad Life is a more clear 
Evidence of a falfe Prophet, than what he talks of in the 
foregoing Page ^ I mean a Separation on the account ot 
thofe things in Difpute- 

Obj. 15. rou are (tho not in Communion, yet) in Charity 
■Kith us: And as a Token of fuch your Charity ', you do not J'cru- 
pie now and then (gs ocafion requires) to come to our Publick 
Service. Neighbour, as to thU Practice of your Party, com- 
monly called Occafional Conformity, it is fo far from \uflifying 
your Separation, or lining your Crime therein, that on the 
contrary, it renders it mojl inexcufable ; For by fuch Occafional 
Conformity you plainly own, that there is nothing in our Publick 
Service, but what you cm \oyn with us in, if you will, and 
therefore your not coming to our Publick Service conflantly, muji 
proceed from no better Motive than Wilfulnefs or Obftivacy, at 
kaft, ?iot out of a Confcientious fear of fmv'wg thereby, 

Tt 



C ?7 3 

To which I anfwer, i. That if the Doftor's unchari 
Cable Principle were true, that in all Church-Diviiionson 
one fide or other, Perfons mull be no Chriftians, his Ar- 
gument would be good. But this is a Principle which 
he knows we deny, and which is indeed wide from the 
Truth .• Tho we think the Blame of our Divifions lies 
entirely on the Conformifts fide, yet we dare not judge 
after this rate of our Brethren. And whatever the Do- 
£tor may think of our Charity herein, we doubt not 
but fober Men, who think freely, will own it a Ver- 
tue. 

2. Thefe Occafional Conformifts do look upon them- 
felves bound in Confcience to have their ftate'd Commu- 
nion with the Dillenting Ministers, notwithilanding their 
Charity. They think it very evident, that they have all 
the neceilary Qualifications of the Minifters of Chrift. 
And that they were very unjuitly thrown out of their Pla- 
ces in 1662. and that when thofe Terms were imposed, 
all Minifiers ought to have refus'd them, and confe- 
quently that the Dillenting Minifters are the moll right- 
ful Pallors of the Church, to which all the Christians of 
this Nation are bound ftatedly to join themfelves : And 
if Minifters and People had both a&ed thus, as they 
ought to have done, there had been no Separation at all : 
But then, 

3. They think, that tho this be the true State of the 
Cale, they are not bound to condemn or unchriilian all 
thole who think otherwife. They believe that fincere 
Chriilians, and true Minifiers of Chrift, might be of 
different Opinions, and therefore they do not fee v/hy 
they may not eftcem them as Chriftians, and hold Com 
munion with them as fuch upon occafion, tho in theic 
Extra-ellential things they judge them in the wrong, and 
think they are bound to a fixed ordinary Communion 

h the other iide j and with all they lay, 

4. That they do not herein do any thing which they 
apprehend iinful according to the Scriptures, or thai, can 

i-aloiubly concluded fuch from their proi 
Principles. 

5. There are many things in the National . 
ment, which have been generally confefs'd bv I 

de tfnifi, and to need a Reformat ] 
Inch a Reformatio:; ; the Pu 

C 1 \ 



while they continu'd in the Church, and by the Diffen- 
ters fince : But nothing of this nature can be obtain'd, 
but fuch Motions have been always rejected, and are 
profelfedly by many oppos'd 5 and therefore the Diilenters 
can't but look on themfelves as bound to attempt that 
Reformation among themfelves, which they can't ex- 
pert in the Conflitution. 

6- 'Tis very pofiible, a Man may think it lawful to 
join in fome Parts of Eilablifh'd Worflup, and unlawful 
to join in others ; he may think it lawful to take the Sa- 
crament Kneeling, and yet unlawful to have his Child 
baptiz'd with the Sign of the Crofs. And yet I fuppofe 
all will grant, that a Man's fix'd Communion mould be 
where he judges he can without Sin have the free Ufe 
of both Sacraments. So that a Man's occafional Confor- 
mity in one Particular, can't reafonably be interpreted, 
an owning that there is nothing in the Publick Service, but 
what he can join in, if he will. 

7. There is no Obligation that lies upon them to fuch a 
conftant Communion as is urg'd by the Doctor. If Arts 
of Parliament did now fas they do not) require this of 
us, what Evidence can be given, that God has lodg'd 
Eccleiiaftical Government in a Magiftrate ? No fuch thing 
can beinfer'd from the New Teflament, or from the 
Original Contrail, the Foundation of all Civil Power. 
If the Power of a Convocation, to make Laws for a 
National Church, be urg'd , What Evidence is there, 
that Chrifl (who iniUtuted no fuch kind of Church) ever 
appointed any fuch governing Power ? What Evidence, 
that all Chriltian Churches, who have a Power left them 
within themfelves, are oblig'd to fubmit to the Decrees 
of fuch an unequal Reprefentation ? Or in fine, if the 
Command of the Bifhop in whole Diocefs I live, be urg'd, 
what Evidence can be given of my Obligation to acknow- 
ledge him for my Pallor or Bifhop, whom the Prince 
fhall appoint ? Or what good Reafon can there be, that 
I mould look upon him as the Perfon whom lam to o- 
bey and fubmit to, as fet over me by God to watch for 
my Soul, to whom I am a perfecl: Stranger, and like al- 
ways, it may be, fo to remain. 

Thefe things ought to be clear'd, and the Authority 

rriat obliges Perfons to be of the Eitablifh'd Communion, 

be made out by good Scripture Evidence, which I am 

- fatisfy'd 



C 39] 

fatisfy'd the Doftor has not yet. done. It may perhaps 
be laid, that by their own Practice, and by an Occafional 
Submiffion, thefe Perfons do acknowledge the Authority 
that enjoins the Eftablifh'd Worfhip, and therefore arc 
bound to a conftant joining with it. But the Anfwer to 
that is eafy, for their Practice fhews plainly, tluMney do 
not acknowledge any iuch Authority as is pretended, and 
their Hated DiiVent is an avowing the contrary. By their 
Occafional Communion therefore, they do teiiify their 
Charity in an Action which they do judge lawful ^ and by 
their more ordinary and fixed Communion with the Diilen- 
ters, they do proteO againit the impoiing Power, which 
is fo very pernicious and prejudicial to tiie Chriihan Reli- 
gion in this Nation. 

Next the Doctor proceeds to the pother part of the 
Objection, of DifTenters being in Charity, tho not in con- 
stant Communion with the Conformists. And this he 
endeavours to anfwer, and the old Story of Obe- 
dience tooBifhops Returns, which need not be again 
confide r'd. 

The Doctor will do well to anfwer another Objection ; 
and that is, that he himtelf is not in Charity with the 
DilTenters. But he adds, / mutt car nejtly beg you, to al- 
low your felf due time for an impartial Examination of 
your own Heart, whether you may not [njfibly deceive your 
felf, whilejl you think yon are in Charity with us. This 
is not a very hard Quefuon to determine. A Man may 
know whether he believes thofa that differ from him are 
good Christians, and whether he do\s truly love all 
Rich. The Dodor openly profefles that he hat no t'uch 
Charity as this tor u- : Bui I can allure him, that 'tis very 
poffible for a Dillenter CO be of this Difpoiition toward 
Church-men • and 1 make no doubt, but many Church- 
men (of a better Spirit than the Donor) ire of the fame 
Difpoiition ton 

He adds, that there is no vinch Ground 
you may poj/ibiy be thus d 
ledge, if you ate not alt 

Charity your Presbyterian fi> I A' 

hellion be:. d to the 

mu 

In aulv. 

iraj th : uui of t] 11 al Partj 



[ 40 3 

'Tis notorious with what a high hand they carry'd it to- 
ward us , they perfecuted us with an implacable Maiice, 
and were endeavouring to bring this Nation under the 
vilefl Slavery, both Civil and Religious. And when the 
Nation became fenfible of their Danger, and began to con- 
tend for the Civil Rights, it can't be wonder'd at, that 
thofe who were unjuftly opprefs'd, fhould take part with 
thofe who oppos'd the OppreiTors. What was it they 
fuffer'd from the Presbyterians, in companion of what 
they fuffer'd from them between 1662. and 1688 ? Were 
they uncapable of Livings meerly for their being Epilco- 
pal? Or were there any Hardfhips put upon them, like 
thofe of the Oxford 5 Mile Aft i Had the Diffcnters 
been only depriv'd of rheir Livings in 1662. Had they 
not been depriv'd of the moil facred Rights of Subjects, 
and been continually harrafs'd, fin'd, ifriprifon'd, and 
deftrain'd upon, and that very much at the laudation of 
the Clergy j had they not endur'd fuch a Series. &>£ bitter 
Reproaches and Calumnies, built on many notorious For- 
geries, the Doftor might with fome Face have menti- 
on'd thefe former Times. But fince the Epifcopal Party 
have fo abundantly repaid them to the utmolr, whatever 
Hardfhips they can pretend to have fuffer'd at their 
Hands, in Modefty, he ought to have omitted this j 
Not to mention the extraordinary Charity jhewn, at this very 
prefent, by your Brethren to the Epifcopal Party, in a 
Kingdom not remote. To which I anfwer, that this Re- 
flection is more unreafonable than the former, in as 
much as the Barbarities us'd towards the Presbyterians 
in that Kingdom, did vaflly exceed thofe which were 
fuffer'd by their Brethren in England. The Thumkins, 
Boot, and open Murders, without fo much as a Form 
of Juftice, pradis'd in that Nation, iirike a Man at 
the very thought of them with Horrour : And what 
is it that the Epifcopal Party fuffer there, who are not de- 
priv'd of Liberty of Confcience ? 'Tis too plain, that a 
Jacobite Delign is at the Bottom of that Noile and Cla- 
mour which has lately been made in this Nation about 
Scotland, but as the B — p of S — in has clear 'd this 
Matter in his fpeech in the Houfe of Lords, I (ball con- 
tent myfelf with letting down his Account of the Mat- 
rer, taking it out of the Annals of Qi eel JiuTs R-.ign, 
fortheYeat, 1705.*. 206L He {"aid, 

" That 



C40 

" That as to the Scotch Aftilrsy he was particularly ac« 
" quainted with them* and therefore would venture to 
" fpeak with the more Aflurance : That the Scotch K\rk% 
u being EftabliuYd without a Toleration, was an unfair Al- 
t' legation 5 for there needed no Law for Toleration, where 
" there was no Law to Inhibit. The Epifcoparians were 
" not forbid to Worfhip God their own way, being only 
" excluded from Livings ; and that there were at that time 
" fourteen Epifcopal Meeting-Houfes in Edinburgh as open 
" as the Churches, and as freely reforted to ; in leveral 
" of which the Englifh Lithurgy uas us'd } but, that in fe- 
" veral of them the Queen was not pray'dfor. And the Bill 
u for giving Patrons liberty of conferring their Benefice! 
" on Clerks Epifcopally Ordain'd, had patVd (at leaft the 
" King had allow 'd it) if they would have put in a Claufe 
" to oblige them to take the Oath to the Government, bat 
44 upon rhe offering that Claufe, the Per Ion that follicited 
il it, let it drop. 

Obj. 16. Tou mean well , and would fain do the befl : 
He Aniwcrs } Any Papift, or any otkr mi) guided, Per [on will 
fiy the fame ; And may not I fay the fame to any Church- 
man that pretends to this, as I luppofe they do : And if the 
Dr. thinks this is our laft Refuge, and that we are fore'd to 
flee to this when all our other Arguments are anfwerM, he 
is much miftaken \ We need no luch fhirt as this, nor is 
this any Objection of our making, but a fincy of the Doctor's, 
which he thought would lave handsomely to bring up the 
Rear of his vain Triumph. Where Men make liu.li a Pro- 
feflion (as all honeft Men mull be fuppOi'd 10 do it on both 
fides) and do not plainly contradict ir, they are to be be- 
lieved, and that mould caufe contending Parties to have 
more Charity than what the Doctor exprefles in the next 
words, vi\. And yon run fl remember, that tho" God will un- 
doubtedly rii.de Allowima for Ljrightfhfs of lntt.ntio» % wl\r~ 
uf- bus been made of all due mean pre/rib" d by Cod for under- 
/landing the Truth, yet thh can't be looL'd upon tote your (Safe, 
who rrfufc to male ufe of the OrAvury Meafti appointed { 
jar your lv)hudion ; becaufe ynu rcfufc to be guided bf your 
l'anjh Mimjhr, whom Godk. t to guide yvn mall 

ioi'its of Difficulty. 

Bat, 1. Mow do'fl it appea 
Paiilh-Miniftcr to bw nn I 

:. Who 



C42 3 

2. Who is to be Judge, which are Points of Difficulty ? 
Mutt I take the Parifh-Minifter's word for that as well as 
for the Relolution ? What can the Papifts delire more ? 
Suppofe a Man mould have recourfe to the 
Pag. 43. Doctor, ( as his Parifh Minifter) or to his 
Writings, which the Doctor thinks better, and 
confults him upon the Point of Conformity, and having 
coniider'd his Reafons, finds them weak and trifling, muft 
he be guided by him, in fpite of his own Judgment, that 
he is in the wrong ? 

The Doctor miftakes, when he goes about to perfwade 
the Diffenters to an implicit Faith, and blind Obedience, 
they are very much difpos'd to fee with their own Eyes, 
and to believe no Doctrine any farther than they fee the 
Proof of it, and to own no Authority without fome good 
Reafon to convince them of the Righttulnefs of it. And as 
to the fincerity of our Intentions^ we warn the Doctor that 
he would leave that to God to judge of ; 'tis B nice Point, 
and requires a more defcerning, calm, aid impartial Judg- 
ment to fearch into it than the Doctor is Mafter of : Let 
him remember that he is a fallible Creature, liable to 
miftake in Judging, and therefore let him beware of rafh 
judging the Secrets of Men, and their Eternal States. For 
tho an unrighteous Judgment makes no Alteration in the 
Cafe of thofe, who are judg'd, yet the Confequence of it 
(being fodefperatelyMifchievous to the Perfons themfelves, 
who take upon them to judge and condemn their Neigh- 
bours ) mould be more awfully thought of by the Doctor 
than it feemsto be. 

God forbid I mould judge any Man, who profeffes to be- 
lieve, and do all that is requir'd in order to Salvation, and 
do's not contradict his Profeflion by a wicked Life. Such 
a Man, let him be Presbyterian, Independant, Epifcopal, 
or Anabaptift, (hall be fincereiy Lovd and Honour'd by 
me, and with all fuch I always Profefs a readinefs to hold 
Communion, To it may be done with the Omiflion of doubt- 
ful Difputations. 

I hnve now gone over his Objections, except thofe that 
are peculiar to himfelf, and of them, and his Conclusion, I 
(hall not need to fpeak, becaufe they do not at all aitect the 
Caufe of the Diffenters- 



[4? I 

Khali only take a view of his Poftfcript, where there is 
no want of Malice and bitter Zeal, our the Doctor i» To 
kind as to qualifie it with an Antidote, that will prevent 
our receiving any hurt by it, I mean the tu^rabundant Sil- 
linefsand Weaknefs of it. 

i. Then he gives us a Specimen ot the Disagreement 
between the Diflenters Principles and Praftices.^ 

I have fpoken to the two mftof his Inftancesin my other 
Letter ; His 3d lnftance is, That it is the Diflenters Prin- 
ciple, that kneeling at the Sacrament is not to oe allow a of, 
as bdng Popilh and Superfluous j and for their Practice he 
tells us, that the Difjenters do, notwiihftandtug, Ineelat the 
Sacrament, in order to qualifie tbemfdves for Places or Offices : 
Than which nothing can be more Ridiculous. How ealie 
were it to retort this on the Church-men, by comparing 
one Church-man with another, or the lame Men vntn 
themfelves ; namelv, their Principles about Obedience to 
the Prince, and their Practice direitly oppofite to it. 

But I ask whether this Learned Doctor do s not know 
that the Diflenters are not all of one Mind in this Matter . 
Or, do's he know that the fame Men hold that Prn-ciple, 
and yet aft in a direO Oppoiition to it? He knows, ail 
thofe that receive the Sacrament kneeling, do lay, tnc-y do 
not judge it unlawful fo to do 5 and the other fort or DU- 
fenters, who think kneeling at the Sacrament Unlawtui, are 
tiich as never Communicate with the Church. The Gentle- 
men in the Houfe of Commons, who contended fo earnettiy 
for the Occalional Bill, yet took notice ot this, and it 
might feem ftrange the Do£tor mould over-look it, were it 
not that he ihews himlelf relolv'd to venture at any thing, 
fo he may but reproach and vilitie the DilLnters. g 

In his 4th Inftance, he lets down this a* our Principle, 
•fii Suparftitious and Popijh to adorn churches, or Mil tbcm 
fine and Betutij ul : And our Practice he repp lents, that 
ftveral Meeting- Houfe s of the THjftmtrh °t *«* r <"* kreti ? d > 
arc, notrvitbllanding, built much hiore Suttly and tine, tbm 
mofi of our Paritb-Cburcbes. 1 am a perfecl granger to tins 
Pr.nci nlc Of the Diflenters, which the Debtor talks of a. 
mav be feen by a Patfage in my former Letter wrote before 
this. The Diffentersdo indeed rodtf il pnUwtul to 
adorn places of Worfhipwitb Piaurcs and CrucittfCS 
I ruppofe the Doctor cao'l chaige them with any thin 
this- but as to the height of the building, it iSCttttiniy 



C44 3 

* very great Convenience and Advantage to the People, 
who meet in it, upon more accounts than one : And I 
know none who think that 'tis Saperftitious or Popim to 
have the place of Worfhip Decent and Handfome, tho they 
judge, that where the Circumftances of a People will not 
reach to what is defirable, they may neverthelefs acceptably 
Worfhip God. And hereiu the Conrorraifts muft be fup- 
pos'd to agree with them : For as they have their Stately 
Cathedrals, fo they have forae Parim-Churches which are 
fufficiently Mean, and which being only Thatch 'd, might 
in Reafon check the Humour of fome Teople, that defpife 
the Diffenters Worfhip upon that account. But it this be 
the Principle of any Diffenters, I will freely difown it, and 
declare, I am fo far from it, that I wifh the Diffenters had 
as Fine and Beautiful Places of Worfhip in every Town in 
England^ as thofe the Doctor fpeaks of, which have been 
Erected of late Years. 

His other Inftance 1 have fpoken of before, 

2. Next he gives us a Specimen of the Agreement be- 
tween fome Principles and Practices of the Diffenters and 
Papifts. 

ii The Papifts make it their bufwefs to f educe and draw off the 
People from the Communion of the Church of England. The 
Diffemtrs make it their bufwefs to do the very fame. 

This is admirably Profound ! The Papifts would draw 
Men one way, and the Diffenters would draw them quite 
the contrary, and therefore there muft be a marvellous 
Confent and Agreement between them : All Parties think 
themfelves in the Right ; and like to have others of their \ 
Mind. But I would ask the Doctor whether he do's not 
think, that the Papifts are as willing to feduce Perfons > 
from the Communion of the Diffenters, and whether there 
be not therefore as perfeft an Agreement in this Matter ' 
between them and the Church of England ? And how eaii- 
ly could I run the Parallel as far as the Doctor has done, if 
Fond of writing fuch iifly Poftfcripts. The Papifts and the 
Church -men agree in feducing Men, and drawing them 
from the Diffenters to Diocefan Epifcopacy, to Forms of 
Prayer, to bowing toward the Altar, and at the name of 
Jefitt, to kneeling a"t the Sacrament, and the ufe of the 
Crofs in Baptiim; and the Papifts ufe fome of the fame 
Methods with the Doctor;, Urge an implicit Faith in Church- 
Guides, endeavour to fright People into their Commu- 
nion 



C 45 3 

nion, by impudently damming all thofe that feparate 
from them, gjV. 

His id, 3d and 4thlnftances I have already confider'd, 
5. The Papijls pretend to Miracles, and Extraordinary 
Gifts, and that their chief Guide, the Tope, is infpird, or 
more immediately ajjijlea and dhecled by the Spirit* The 
Dijfenters likexvife pretend, that their Teachers are more fpi- 
titually Gifted than our Ep if copal Clergy, and that tJyeir 
Guides an (many, if not all of them) infpir'd, or mors 
immediately ajjijled and dircfted by the Spirit. 

Poor trifling ! The Papifts pretend to Miracles and ex- 
traordinary Gifts •, Do the DifTenters pretend to any iuch 
thing ? What are the Miracles they boaft of ? Do's the 
Doctor think the Afiiftance of God's Spirit a thing ex- 
traordinary in the Chriilian Church ? Is it not what eve- 
ry fiwcere Gunman certainly has ? Is it not fure, that if 
any Man have not the Spirit of Chrift, he is none of 
Chrilt's ? Rum. 8. 9. The DifTenters do indeed Pray for 
the Anaftance of the Spirit, and hope they enjoy a Mea- 
fure of it, according to the Ailurance which Chrift has 
given us, That our Heavenly Father vtillgive his Holy Spirit 
to thofe that ask him, Luke n. 13. And they have the 
Charity to think this is not peculiar to themfelves. The 
Papiits indeed do pretend that the Pope is infpir'd, or 
more immediately aflifted and directed by the Spirit : Bat 
do they not pretend that he is render'd hereby infallible ? 
Did they only pretend to his being immediately aflifted 
as other Chriitians are, (who may notwithstanding err) 
who would deny it, fuppofing he appear'd to l>e a good 
Chriilian ? But why do's the Doftor fay the Diilenters 
pretend their Guides are infpir'd t Is that a word which 
they ever appiy to themfelves ? Or do they pretend to 
that Infallibility which lnfpiration (in the common 
Senfe of the Word) do\s carry along with it ? Do they 
pretend to impofe any tiling they lay upon the People on 
.core \ Do they not openly declare and avow to their 
Hearers, that th>-y are no father to be believ'd, tfun a; 
what they £h is Contain d in the Scripture, or by juit 
Conference dedue'd from it ? If Inl'piiatioft be taken 
only in a Lax Senfe, for the Afliliance of the Spirit, the 
Diilenters know that the Church-men pretend t 
as themfelves. I Would tain elt'e uncle; 13th 

AiuJe 1 " Works done be for* the Grac of Chrift, and 



r 46] 

" the Infi intion of hi> Spirit, are not pleafant to God. 
Or the Colled for the 5th Sunday }& • "O 

«• Lord, from whom all ^ood things do come, grant to 
" us, thy humble , that by thy holy h 

u tion we m ly clunk thole tilings that be good, &c. 

Or if the U >dut pia-nd; to nothing of thij, I would 
fainki. e cpuld aufwer the Queftion propounded 

to him when 1 e was nude a Deacon ? Wlien the Eifliop 
ask'd him, Do you truit that you are inwardly mov'd by 
the Holy Ghoft, to take upon y*u this Office ? iiow could 
he aniwer, I trujl p£ I know no Di (renters that carry 
the Matter higher than this. It foil 

Wlxnce arijes N. B. one remarkable Difference between 
the Dijj'enters and Papists. The Papifts acknowledge but one 
(viz. the chief) of their Spiritual Guides to be infpir'd^ 
or more immediately ajjifted and directed by the Spirit, and 
him they call the Pope. The D'ftenters pretend that many 
(if not all) of their Spiritual Guides are infpir'd, or more 
immediately ajjifted and dircaed by the Spirit, and Jo haie 
Mmovg them many Popes. 

Do's the Doctor believe what he fays to be true ? If he 
do's, he ought to underiiand our Opinion better, before he 
writes againft us, and not rafhly charge us with what we 
uoiitively deny, in the fame Senfe that the Churcn-men 
do. For I doubt not, but they will own, that notwith- 
ftanding God gives his Spirit to ChriiUans in general, 
yet there are foine fpecial Promifes of Ch rift's prefence 
made toMiaifters, upon which they may depend, not on- 
ly in that Work which is common to them and other 
Chriftians, but m that which is peculiarly theirs, I mean 
the Difjcharge of the Minifterial Function, And therefore 
it is too plain, the Doctor has here taken part with the 
great Accufer. 

I can't but commend to the Doctor this Caution, as a 
Friend, that he would beware of banterj it the 

Work of the Spirit : Tis too ferious a Matter to be thus 
ridicul : d: And i am fully \ I, that the Negleft 

of this daution will never be of Service mfe. 

For they who know ho iry the Aftiihnce of the 

Spirit i.^, and make I their earneft and 

daily Prayer to God, will be very apt to fulped (in 

can turn the 
Affiftauce of God's Spirit - fome w 

other qui 1 Si&€ 



[47 3 

Since it tints appears from the foregoing Specimen, that all 
the Jdvtrfarict of the Church nf fcngland promote the font 
common End, viz. Popery, and that by many the fame com- 
mon Artifices ; it ought therefore to be duly confider'd, svhe- 
L\y WUJ not all be very properly comprehended unAcr the 
me of I'apills 5 and Jo be Jub-dijlinguijh'd into Ro- 
m.m Catholick Pafijtl on the one band, and on the 0- 
thcr hand, into fanatical iFapijls, otherwife caWd I)if- 
fenti 

I would fain know of the Doftor why he is offended 
with the Dilienters, when they accufe the Couformiits 
as fynibolizing with the Papifls, and yet is fa free to 
brand them as Papills } And what dillinctive Point of 
Popery do they maintain \ I cannot think of one t 
wherein the Cunformiils differ from the Paxils, wherein 

do not dirkr from them alio j and I 
a^ fa ,iore t wherein they dillei from I 

Loth. So tint they mu: uted and nam' 

not becauiethey are lets, tut mbre opi'ofite afli 
to the Papiits than fame of their N -labours : So true 
Hot in his way of n p t, „ fl 

irfe in other Places. The rea- i; f f' ,, r V 7 
Ion why » ; fd PjpjJlSj i6y Of Imotha Lrt- 

bceaufe « | ,- jL. And hi, r * 

Addition 1 t ibfund and ridiculous 1 

other. \\ c own nut one Notion about the influen 

1 we are not able to confirm by tiie 

I I Liturgj 6rY ol the Chui, ;ahnd as 

well 

tlli us, That »c *! 
; ;r and ... 

ti, I 1 iy, 

ns are an 

in 1662 

11 be 

I'd in 
Uutfe Affairs in i6tfi. ti j 

•ully 



•C 48 3 

■wilfully and induftriouily caufe a Divifion, whicli any 
one might fee, could ferve no other than a Popiih In- 
tereit. 

2. 'Tis too plain who are now moft ferviceable to the: 
Popifll Caufe, even thofe who are united in Counfels 
with them, as the Jacobites and High Church-men acta* 
ally are ; and that in Oppofition to the DiiTenters and 
Moderate Church-men. And there is evidently mors 
Danger from the Oppofition of the High-Church againft 
the Moderate Church-men, than from any Difagreement 
between them and the DiiTenters : And it is the Union of 
thefe two that has kept out Popery, winch had other wiCe 
overflow^ this Nation. 

3. Tis in the Power of the Church to end the Divifiooi 
(in a great meifure at lcait) and fo to remove the Dan- 
ger that arifes from it. Or it is rather in the Power 
the Parliament to remove thofe things that keep tl 
Breach wide open ; but the' loud Noife and empty Cli 
mour of the High Part of the Clergy, hinder it. So that 
whatever the Advantage be which the Papifts gain by our*. 
Divisions, it is wholly chargeable on the Conformiflsj 
fide. For, 

4. We are not able on our fide to end the Divifion., J 
We are heartily forry, not only that the Papifts may reap' 
Advantages hereby, but for many other Mifchiefs that 
are owing to the fame Caufe. But we cannot part witk 
our Confciences to keep out Popery , nor mult we do E-l 
vil, that Good may come of it . 

And thus, Sir, I have confider'd the Doctor's Argu-J 
ments againit us, which, I am well fatisfy'd, are noM 
like to do us half the Mifchef, which from nis own Un-I 
charitablenefs (without Repentance) is like to accrue toj 
himfelf. That God would therefore give him true Re- J 
pentance, {hall be fincerely my Prayer for him \ and! 
therein, I doubt not, your Religion and Inclination witti 
engage you to join with, 



SIR, 

Tours, 5cc, 






V 



*** 



- 9. 



1. ♦ 







1 W